Every rule shows its source and the day we last checked it.

A comparable automobile must be by the same manufacturer, of the same model year, with similar body style and condition, similar options and similar mileage. Alabama attaches no numeric limits — no minimum count, no radius, no recency window and no mileage tolerance — but does require a replacement vehicle to be available for inspection within a reasonable distance of the insured's residence.

yes, included in the cash settlement — but capped. The offer must include all applicable taxes, and the amount payable on taxes, license fees and transfer fees is limited to what would have been paid on the totaled, insured vehicle at the time of settlement.

No state rule located. Chapter 482-1-125 contains no appraisal or umpire procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

Comparables must be sourced from the LOCAL MARKET AREA using dealer quotations, computerized databases, or published industry sources. Where none is available locally the search area may be expanded to surrounding areas IN 25-MILE INCREMENTS. Where dealer quotations are used, two or more cost quotations must be obtained from two or more licensed dealers.

yes — all applicable taxes are included in both settlement routes. Note that Alaska has no STATE sales tax, though many municipalities levy their own, so what is 'applicable' varies by locality.

No state appraisal procedure located. Alaska's substitute is the LONGEST recourse right in the ledger: the claimant may notify the insurer not later than 60 days after receipt of the claim payment that they cannot purchase a comparable vehicle for the settlement amount, and the claim must be reopened.

None. R20-6-801 uses the term 'comparable automobile' throughout the total-loss subsection but never defines it, and sets no distance or market-area limit, no recency window, no minimum number of comparables and no mileage tolerance. What the rule does constrain is deductions: every deduction from the cost, salvage included, must be measurable, discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount, and appropriate in amount.

yes — the cash settlement is based on the actual cost to purchase a comparable automobile 'including all applicable taxes'. Arizona attaches no replacement condition to that, but it also has no express 'whether or not a replacement automobile is purchased' clause of the kind California uses.

No state rule. Arizona imposes no statutory or regulatory appraisal procedure for first-party auto physical damage — where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy, not a requirement of Arizona law.

The cost of a comparable automobile in the LOCAL MARKET AREA where one is available; where none is available locally, one of two or more quotations obtained by the insurer from two or more qualified dealers or appraisal services located within the local market area. Arkansas sets no distance in miles, no recency window and no mileage tolerance, and does not define 'local market area'.

yes, mandatory — when settling a total loss the insurer must include all applicable taxes, including sales taxes and fees as required under Rule 43, and must itemize how much of the payment is sales tax. Failure to comply is an unfair claims settlement practice.

No state appraisal procedure located. Rule 43's automobile section contains no appraisal or umpire machinery; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy. The rule does contemplate 'appraisal services' as a source of dealer-style quotations, which is a different thing.

'Comparable automobile' = like kind and quality, same manufacturer, same or newer model year (newer only if insufficient same-year comps), same model type, similar body type, options and mileage similar to the insured vehicle. Each comp must have been available for retail purchase by the general public in the local market area within 90 calendar days of the final settlement offer, and must be identified by VIN, dealer stock/order number, or license plate plus the seller's phone number or street address. Any adjustments must be discernible, measurable, itemized, specified, appropriate in dollar amount and documented in the claim file; unsupported deductions may not be used; no condition deduction unless the loss vehicle's documented condition is below average for its year/make/model (prior/unrelated damage may be deducted).

yes — all applicable sales taxes must be included in the cash settlement whether or not a replacement vehicle is purchased; if the owner retains the salvage, sales tax is computed on the comparable automobile's cost discounted by the tax attributable to the salvage value

Policy-based; no California statute mandates or sets timelines for appraisal in personal auto policies. The regulation presupposes one: invoking 'the appraisal provision of the insurance policy' is one of the three remedies the insurer may use when a first-party total-loss insured triggers the 35-day reopen right. The statutory appraisal clause (Ins. Code § 2071: name appraiser within 20 days of written request; umpire within 15 days, else court-appointed; informal proceedings) governs the standard FIRE policy, not auto, though many auto forms track its structure.

None. Colorado sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance. The only comparability constraint is that a replacement offered in kind must be of a 'comparable class', defined by vehicle type and passenger count.

yes, mandatory and unconditional — the insurer shall pay sales tax on a total loss. The statute attaches no replacement condition and no time window.

No state rule located. Colorado imposes no statutory or regulatory appraisal procedure for first-party auto physical damage; where an appraisal provision applies it comes from the policy.

Connecticut's primary method is a published two-source retail average rather than a set of comparable listings, so there is no minimum count, radius, recency window or mileage tolerance attached to it. The Insurance Department's regulations separately describe auto total-loss settlement methods including a comparable automobile available in the local market, with comparables of like kind, quality, age, mileage and equipment and adjustments itemized in writing.

yes, but conditionally — the insurer must pay the settlement amount PLUS an amount equal to the settlement multiplied by the current sales tax rate, WHENEVER THE INSURER TAKES TITLE to the vehicle. The tax uplift is tied to the insurer taking title, so an owner who keeps the salvage should not assume it applies.

No state appraisal procedure located. What Connecticut supplies instead is a statutory dispute signpost: the insurer must tell the claimant, in prescribed type, that they may dispute the settlement amount by contacting the Insurance Department's Consumer Affairs Division.

None located. No minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance was found.

No sales-tax requirement, because Delaware levies no sales tax. § 2304(16) was read for a tax provision and contains none, and there is no Delaware sales tax for such a rule to operate on. The live cost on a Delaware replacement is the motor vehicle document fee, which is a fee rather than a tax — see title and registration fees.

No state rule located. § 2304(16) contains no appraisal or umpire procedure; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

2 or more comparable vehicles in the 'local market area' available within the preceding 90 days; no mileage radius defined. Any deviation from the listed methods must be documented and deductions itemized in dollar amounts

yes-upon-replacement

Policy-based. No Florida statute requires or regulates an appraisal clause in personal auto policies; § 626.9743 is silent (the companion property statute § 626.9744(4) leaves settlement-dispute provisions to the policy)

2 or more comparable vehicles within 50 miles of the county seat where the vehicle was principally garaged, available within the last 30 days; if none, 2+ comps within 100 miles (incl. nearest major metro), then 2+ dealer quotes within 50 miles. No itemized-adjustment or written-explanation requirement in the rule

yes (in the cash settlement, not conditioned on replacement) — 'all applicable taxes' incident to transfer of ownership, capped at the tax that would have been paid on the totaled vehicle

Policy-based appraisal is standard; in addition, Georgia rule lets either party request Commissioner-administered arbitration when liability is affirmed but amount is disputed (3-member panel, costs split, binding and satisfies any policy arbitration clause). No statutory appraiser-naming deadline

Hawaii constrains the SOURCES rather than the comparables. Dealer quotations may be used only when the vehicle is available at the quoting dealer's lot, and dealer quotations and newspaper advertisements may be used in lieu of the insurer's usual source but may NOT be treated as sole sources reflective of market value. Hawaii sets no minimum count, distance, recency window or mileage tolerance.

No rule located. Neither the total-loss statutes (HRS §§ 431:10C-309 to 311) nor the Insurance Division's motor vehicle rules (HAR chapter 16-23) require an insurer to include general excise tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's value standard rather than on a state rule.

Named in the statute as one of the permitted responses. Where the insured cannot buy a comparable vehicle at the determined market value within 30 days but has located one costing more, the insurer may pay the difference, purchase the vehicle, USE APPRAISAL, or reopen the claim file.

None located. No minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance was found in Idaho law.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state rule located. § 41-1329 contains no appraisal or umpire procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

Computerized-service comps: at least 2 vehicles currently available from, or sold by, licensed Illinois dealers (one sold within 30 days, one within 90 days), dealer located within 50 miles of the general metropolitan area; dealer names, locations and VINs kept in claim file. Database values must use data from the area where the vehicle was principally garaged with mileage/condition allowances. Betterment/condition deductions allowed only if measurable, itemized, specified in dollars and documented; wear-and-tear/rust/missing-parts deductions capped at $500; 'dealer prep' deductions prohibited.

yes-upon-replacement — if insured purchases or leases a vehicle within 30 days of receiving the settlement, insurer reimburses applicable sales tax (capped at tax on the total-loss vehicle's value; documentation due within 33 days); insurer may instead pay tax directly at settlement. Paid outright when a replacement vehicle is provided.

Policy-based; no Illinois statute mandates an appraisal provision or sets appraiser-naming timelines. The regulation recognizes settlement 'under the appraisal section of the insurance contract' as one of the insurer's Right-of-Recourse options and deems the result binding on both parties.

None. Indiana sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance.

No rule. Nothing in Indiana's insurance statutes or the Department of Insurance's rules requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement.

No state rule. Indiana's statutes and insurance rules set no appraisal procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies, it is a term of the policy.

Two or more comparable automobiles in the local market area, available within 90 days. Where none is available locally, the insurer may go to proximate areas and the closest major metropolitan areas, still within 90 days. Iowa sets no distance in miles and no mileage tolerance, and does not define 'local market area'.

yes, unconditionally — all applicable taxes, license fees and other fees incident to transfer of evidence of ownership shall be paid by the insurer, at no cost to the insured. No replacement condition and no time window appear.

No state appraisal procedure located. Iowa's substitute is a recourse right: where the insured notifies the insurer within 35 days of receipt of the claim draft that they cannot purchase a comparable vehicle, recourse procedures apply.

Comparables must come from the LOCAL MARKET AREA, which Kansas defines as the fifty-mile area surrounding where the vehicle was principally garaged. A valuation source must produce fair market values for a comparable automobile from current data available for that local market area, and must cover at least 85 percent of makes and models for the last 15 model years. Kansas sets no recency window and no mileage tolerance.

yes for a first-party cash settlement — the settlement is based on the cost to purchase a comparable automobile 'including all applicable taxes, license fees and other fees incident to transfer of evidence of ownership'. For THIRD-party total losses the duty is weaker: the insurer must include CONSIDERATION of applicable taxes and fees.

No state appraisal procedure located. Kansas's substitute is a right of recourse with a duty to act on it: where the claimant notifies the insurer within 30 days after receiving the claim draft that they cannot purchase a comparable automobile for that amount, the insurer must reopen the claim file within FIVE BUSINESS DAYS.

A comparable motor vehicle must be in the local market area, and the dealer-quotation alternative needs two or more quotations from qualified and licensed dealers. Kentucky sets no distance in miles, no recency window and no mileage tolerance, and does not define 'local market area'.

yes — the settlement must include all applicable taxes, license fees where those fees cannot be refunded by the Transportation Cabinet, and other fees incident to transfer of evidence of ownership.

No state appraisal procedure located. What 806 KAR 12:095 provides instead is a recourse right: if the insurer is notified within 35 days of receipt of the settlement check that the insured cannot purchase a comparable motor vehicle for fair market value, it must reopen the claim file.

Comparables must come from a fair market value survey of qualified retail automobile dealers in the LOCAL MARKET AREA, with the nearest reasonable market permitted only where the local market has no dealers. Louisiana sets no minimum number of comparables, no distance in miles, no recency window and no mileage tolerance, and does not define 'local market area'.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state appraisal procedure located, but the statute does give the insured an express route: where they dispute the insurer's figure, they may present an independent valuation of the vehicle.

None located. No minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance was found in the sections read.

yes, and framed unlike anywhere else in the ledger. Every Maine motor vehicle casualty contract must provide coverage for the value of the SALES TAX CREDIT that would have been available on trading the vehicle, at the highest book value at the time of loss. No replacement condition and no time window attach.

No state appraisal procedure located in the sections read. Where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

A substantially similar motor vehicle must be the same make and model, of the same year as or a more recent year than the damaged vehicle, with mileage within the greater of 4,000 miles or 10 percent of the mileage on the damaged vehicle. The mileage limit does not apply where the vehicle is limited in production, specialty in nature, or older than 10 model years at the time of total loss.

yes, and expressly regardless of salvage retention — applicable taxes must be added to whichever valuation limb the insurer uses, whether or not the claimant keeps the salvage.

No state appraisal procedure located — but Maryland supplies something more directly useful in its place: a regulated counteroffer procedure. The claimant may reject the offer in writing and counteroffer on dealer quotations, advertisements, or any other source of valuation for a substantially similar vehicle.

None. Massachusetts sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance. Comparability is expressed only as 'like kind and quality'.

No rule requiring it, and appellate authority against it. 211 CMR 133.05 says nothing about sales tax, and the Appeals Court has held that an insurer owes sales tax on a total loss only where the claimant proves tax was actually paid on a replacement vehicle.

No state rule creating one. Massachusetts regulates licensed motor vehicle damage appraisers extensively at 211 CMR 133.00, but that is a licensing and inspection regime rather than a dispute-resolution procedure; where an appraisal provision applies to a valuation disagreement it comes from the policy.

None. Michigan has no distance, count, condition-similarity, or itemization requirement for comparable vehicles.

no rule

Policy-based only. No Michigan statute or rule mandates an appraisal provision or sets appraiser/umpire timelines for auto physical damage; the standard personal auto policy's appraisal clause (each party names an appraiser, appraisers select an umpire) governs where present.

A comparable automobile in the insured's local market area, adjusted for mileage, condition and options. Minnesota sets no minimum number of comparables, no distance or radius, and no recency window, and does not define 'local market area'.

yes — a replacement offer must carry all applicable taxes, and the statute couples tax with license and transfer fees rather than treating it as an extra. No replacement condition or time window appears in the provision.

No state rule located. Minnesota's unfair claims practices statute contains no appraisal procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

None located. No minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance was found in Mississippi law.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state rule located. Mississippi imposes no statutory or regulatory appraisal procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

None. Missouri sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance.

No rule requires the insurer to include sales tax, but Missouri gives most of it back a different way: § 144.027 credits the insurance proceeds plus the deductible against the sales tax on a replacement bought within 180 days of the insurer's payment.

No state rule located. Missouri's improper claims settlement practices regulation contains no appraisal procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

No comparable-vehicle standard. Montana prescribes the MEASURE — actual replacement value — rather than the method of arriving at it, so there is no minimum count, distance, recency window or mileage tolerance.

No sales-tax requirement, because Montana levies no general sales tax. §§ 33-23-202 and 33-18-201 were read for a tax provision and neither contains one, and there is no Montana sales tax for such a rule to operate on.

No state appraisal procedure located. Where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy — though note that a policy provision measuring total-loss reimbursement by book value is void under § 33-23-202 regardless of what the appraisal machinery says.

None. Nebraska sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state appraisal procedure located for a total loss. Nebraska does provide a recourse mechanism, but only for NON-total losses: where the claimant obtains a higher estimate, the insurer may pay the difference or promptly name at least one quality repair shop that will do the work for its figure.

Two or more comparable automobiles that are currently available, or were available within the most recent 90 days, in the local market area. Only if there are not two there may the insurer extend the period or expand the area, and no further than necessary to find two. Dealer price quotations must come from two or more licensed dealers located within the local market area.

Yes, in the settlement itself: a cash settlement is based on the cost of buying a comparable automobile including all applicable taxes, and a replacement-automobile offer must come with the taxes paid. Neither is conditioned on buying a replacement.

No state rule. Nevada's insurance statutes and claims regulation set no appraisal procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies, it is a term of the policy.

No fewer than 2 documented SALES of the same make, model and year within the previous 90 days within the local market area, with like-kind-and-quality vehicles permitted only where exact matches are unavailable. Fair market value must then be adjusted to reflect the vehicle's condition, mileage, accessories and options. New Hampshire sets no distance in miles and does not define 'local market area'.

No sales-tax requirement, because New Hampshire levies no general sales tax. Ins 1002.15 was read for a tax provision and contains none, and there is no New Hampshire sales tax for such a rule to operate on.

No state appraisal procedure located, but a strong statutory reconsideration right in its place: if within 20 days of receipt of the settlement payment the claimant presents evidence from 2 reliable sources that the vehicle would have a higher fair market value, the insurer must reconsider.

A 'substantially similar vehicle' is one of the same make, model, year and condition including all major options, whose mileage does not exceed the insured vehicle's by more than 4,000 miles. A mileage difference above 4,000 may, AT THE INSURED'S OPTION, be exchanged for the presence or absence of options or a cash adjustment. Dealer quotations must come from within 25 miles of the principal place of garagement unless the insured agrees otherwise.

yes, unconditionally — every cash-settlement offer is made 'plus applicable sales tax', and the definition of actual cash value itself includes all moneys paid or payable as sales taxes. A replacement vehicle furnished by the insurer must likewise include applicable sales tax.

Recognized by regulation as one of the routes out of a disputed total loss. Where a claim is reopened because the insured cannot buy a comparable vehicle at the insurer's figure, either party may conclude the settlement under the policy's own appraisal section, and the result is binding on both — without waiving other rights under the contract or at law.

None located. No minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance was found in New Mexico law.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state rule located. § 59A-16-20 contains no appraisal or umpire procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

'Substantially similar vehicle' = same make, model, year and condition, including all major options; mileage may not exceed the insured vehicle's by more than 4,000 miles or 10% of its mileage at date of loss, whichever is greater. Dealer-quote comps must come from a qualified dealer within 25 miles of the place of principal garagement, remain available for purchase for 3 calendar days after acknowledged notice, and the claim file must record dealer name/location, VIN, stock number, mileage and major options. 'Local market area' (for database valuations) = 100-mile radius of principal garagement, within the U.S.; database must draw on licensed dealers selling 100+ vehicles/year and physical inventory sold within 90 days before the loss. Deviation/explanation: manual-based offers require a detailed written calculation by payment date; any 'best available method' offer must be explained; the only expressly permitted line-item deductions are documented dealer prep (≤ $100), salvage value, and applicable deductions such as the deductible — Reg 64 has no CA-style 'discernible, measurable, itemized' condition-adjustment clause.

yes — actual cash value includes all sales taxes paid or payable on the replacement vehicle; DFS consumer guidance describes the total-loss payment as 'retail value plus sales tax'. The rule sits in the general ACV definition of § 216.6(b), not in § 216.7(c), which never mentions sales tax.

Policy-based. Neither Regulation 64 (§ 216.7 contains no appraisal provision — unlike California's § 2695.8(c)(3)) nor the Insurance Law mandates appraisal for auto physical damage. The statutory appraisal clause (Ins. Law § 3404(e), standard fire policy lines: each party names a competent, disinterested appraiser within 20 days of written demand; umpire within 15 days, else court-selected) applies to fire policies only. NY personal auto policies (ISO PP 00 01 Part D) customarily include an appraisal clause with similar 20-day/15-day mechanics, so cite the policy, not a statute.

Comps must be same make, model, and year; located within a 100-mile radius of where the vehicle is principally garaged (expandable in 50-mile increments if none found); at least two; available (or available within 90 days of the accident) to consumers in that area. Adjustments allowed only for condition, options, equipment, mileage and unrepaired pre-existing damage; all deductions must be itemized with amounts and the supporting documentation shared with the claimant.

yes

Statutory. Every NC motor vehicle liability policy must contain an appraisal procedure for disputed vehicle property-damage amounts (including diminution in value) when coverage/liability is not disputed: either party may demand in writing if the gap exceeds the lesser of $2,000 or 25% of pre-accident retail value; each names a licensed, disinterested appraiser within 20 days; appraisers pick an umpire (magistrate selects if no agreement in 15 days); either party may reject the report within 15 days, otherwise binding; each pays own appraiser, umpire cost split equally.

None located. No minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance was found.

No rule requires the insurer to include the motor vehicle excise tax, but North Dakota credits it back: § 57-40.3-01(5) allows a credit on replacement purchases up to the insurance compensation plus the deductible.

No state rule located. § 26.1-04-03(9) contains no appraisal or umpire procedure; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

At least two comparable automobiles in the local market area that are or were available to consumers within the last 90 days; if none, comps from proximate areas including the closest in-state or out-of-state major metropolitan areas; then >=2 licensed-dealer quotes in the local market; database/guidebook only as a fallback with documented condition/mileage/option adjustments. Betterment, depreciation or comparative-negligence reductions must be itemized and specified in dollar amount on the written estimate and documented in the claim file; betterment allowed only for a measurable decrease in market value from poorer condition/prior damage or general wear, rust or missing parts, capped at the replacement cost of the affected parts. Claimant may not be required to travel an unreasonable distance to inspect a replacement vehicle.

yes-upon-replacement — if the claimant purchases a replacement automobile within 30 days of receiving the cash settlement, insurer reimburses applicable sales tax, capped at the tax on a vehicle valued at the settlement amount; documentation due within 33 days; insurer may instead pay the tax directly at settlement. Insurer must give written notice of this right simultaneously with the settlement check (unless tax was paid directly). Paid outright when a replacement vehicle is provided.

Policy-based; Ohio Adm. Code 3901-1-54 contains no appraisal provision, appraiser-naming timeline or appraiser licensing requirement (full-text search of the rule finds no occurrence of 'apprais'). Any appraisal right comes from the personal auto policy's own appraisal condition.

The cost of a comparable vehicle in the local market area, where one is currently or recently available within the prior 90 days. If none is available locally, one of two or more quotations from two or more qualified dealers located within the local market area. The statute sets no minimum number of comparables, no mileage tolerance and no definition of the local market area.

Yes, in the settlement itself: a cash settlement is based on the actual cost to purchase a comparable vehicle including all applicable taxes, and a replacement-vehicle offer must come with the taxes paid. Neither is conditioned on buying a replacement.

No state rule for auto policies. Oklahoma's statutory appraisal procedure belongs to the standard fire insurance policy; nothing in the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act or elsewhere in Title 36 prescribes one for a first-party auto valuation dispute, so any appraisal right is a term of the policy.

A comparable replacement vehicle must be of the same make, of the same or a newer year, of a similar body style, with similar options and mileage, in as good or better overall condition, and available for inspection within a reasonable distance. Oregon sets no distance in miles, no minimum count and no recency window.

yes, unconditionally — the insurer shall pay all applicable taxes incident to transfer of ownership at no cost to the insured beyond the deductible. No replacement condition and no time window appear.

No state appraisal procedure located. Oregon's substitute is the 35-day recourse right: if the insurer is notified within 35 days of receipt of the claim draft that the insured cannot purchase a comparable vehicle at the market value determined, it must reopen the claim file.

No distance/market-radius or count-of-comps rule for the actual-cost method beyond: the comp must be 'available', of like kind and quality, in condition similar to or better than the insured vehicle, with its location specified in writing; dealer quotation method needs at least two quotes averaged; the appraiser's file must show the method used 'in a given locality'. Deductions are tightly limited: guide values adjusted only for equipment and mileage and pre-existing damage; no other deductions except salvage when owner retains the vehicle.

yes — applicable sales tax on the replacement cost is included in the replacement value itself; not conditioned on the insured buying a replacement vehicle.

Policy-based; no Pennsylvania statute mandates an appraisal condition in personal auto policies or sets appraiser-naming timelines. IMPORTANT WORDING CONSTRAINT: in Pennsylvania 'appraiser' and 'appraisal' of motor vehicle physical damage are licensed activities under the Motor Vehicle Physical Damage Appraiser Act (63 P.S. §§ 851-863); no person may act or hold themselves out as an appraiser without a PID license, and total-loss evaluation reports must be prepared by a licensed appraiser (31 Pa. Code § 62.3(e)(5)-(7)). Product output for PA must not describe itself as an 'appraisal' or the user as an 'appraiser'.

No comparable-vehicle standard of the usual kind — no minimum count, distance, recency window or mileage tolerance. What Rhode Island constrains instead is ADJUSTMENTS: any condition adjustment to the retail value must follow the standards of the same nationally recognized compilation the insurer used, and all adjustments including prior damage deductions must be itemized, fair and reasonable.

yes, expressly and unconditionally — the insurer must include applicable sales tax in its calculation of settlement value in ANY total loss claim, and the cash settlement basis itself includes all applicable taxes. No replacement condition and no time window appear.

No state appraisal procedure located. Rhode Island's substitute is a 35-day recourse right: if the insurer is notified within 35 days of receipt of the claim draft that the insured cannot purchase a comparable vehicle for the fair market value, it must reopen the claim file.

None located. No minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance was found in South Carolina law.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state rule located. South Carolina's unfair claim practices statute contains no appraisal or arbitration procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

None. South Dakota sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance.

No rule. Nothing in South Dakota's insurance code or the Division of Insurance's rules requires an insurer to include tax in a total-loss settlement.

No state rule. South Dakota's statutes and insurance rules set no appraisal procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies, it is a term of the policy.

Two or more comparable automobiles in the local market area, available now or within the last 90 days. Where none is available locally, the insurer may go to areas proximate to the local market area, including the closest major metropolitan areas within or outside Tennessee. 'Local market area' is NOT defined, so there is no radius; comparability turns on similarity including mileage.

yes — the insurer shall pay all applicable taxes incident to transfer of ownership, both where it offers a replacement vehicle and where it settles in cash. No replacement condition and no time window appear in the rule.

No state rule located. Tennessee's unfair claims chapter contains no appraisal procedure for first-party auto physical damage; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

None. No distance, count, age or itemization requirement for comparables in Texas statute or regulation

No rule requiring an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement. The automobile-insurance subchapter and the unfair-claims-settlement subchapter were both read in full and neither addresses tax. Texas does levy sales tax on a vehicle purchase, so the cost is real — it is the obligation to pay it that the insurance rules do not create.

Policy-based. Standard Texas personal auto policies include an appraisal clause (each side hires an appraiser; appraisers pick an umpire; decision binding). No statutory appraisal timeline for auto

None. Utah sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state rule located. R590-190-12 contains no appraisal or umpire procedure for a first-party auto valuation dispute; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

Vermont DEFINES its terms, which almost no other state does. A 'comparable vehicle' is one of the same make and model, in similar or better condition, and NO OLDER than the totaled vehicle. 'Local market' means an area within a 75-MILE RADIUS of the zip code used to identify where the totaled vehicle was garaged. 'Available' means currently for sale, or available and/or sold within 90 days of the date of loss.

yes — all applicable taxes are part of both settlement routes, with no replacement condition and no time window. On the replacement route they are paid at no cost to the claimant beyond the deductible.

No state appraisal procedure located in the regulation, but the settlement offer must itself tell the claimant they may dispute the valuation — and a claimant who rejects a replacement-vehicle offer has that rejection documented in the claim file.

None. Virginia sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state rule located. Virginia's automobile claim settlement regulation contains no appraisal procedure; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

Comparables must be currently available or have been available within 90 days of the date of loss, with itemized and verifiable dollar amounts and appropriate additions or deductions for options, mileage or condition. The 150-mile limit attaches to the DEALER-QUOTATION method specifically — two or more licensed dealers within a reasonable distance of the principally garaged area, not to exceed 150 miles — and not to the comparable-vehicle method, which is stated as the area where the vehicle is principally garaged without a stated radius.

yes, up front and unconditionally — the settlement must include all applicable government taxes and fees the claimant would have incurred had they purchased the loss vehicle immediately before the loss. Payment is not conditioned on buying a replacement.

Recognized by regulation, though the procedure itself is the policy's. Where the parties fail to agree on actual cash value and the policy contains an appraisal provision, either the insurer or the first-party claimant may invoke it to resolve the dispute.

A 'substantially similar vehicle' is one of the same make, model, year and condition, whose mileage may not exceed that of the insured vehicle by more than 4,000 miles unless mutually acceptable. West Virginia sets no distance in miles, no minimum count and no recency window.

yes, and by a FLAT 5 PERCENT rather than by actual tax: in addition to any cash settlement value agreed with the claimant, an amount equal to five percent of that settlement value must be added as reimbursement for the state excise tax. The replacement-vehicle route does not carry the uplift.

No state appraisal procedure located. § 114-14-7 contains no appraisal or umpire machinery; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.

None. Wisconsin sets no minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

Wisconsin is unusually protective here, though it works through arbitration rather than an appraisal provision. Failing, where appropriate, to make use of arbitration procedures authorized or permitted under the policy is itself an unfair claim settlement practice — and so is adopting a policy of appealing arbitration awards that favor claimants in order to compel them to accept less than the award.

None located. No minimum number of comparable vehicles, no distance or market-area limit, no recency window and no mileage tolerance was found in Wyoming law.

No rule located. Nothing in the settlement regulation or the wider code requires an insurer to include sales tax in a total-loss settlement; the argument rests on the policy's actual-cash-value standard rather than on a state rule.

No state rule located. § 26-13-124 contains no appraisal or umpire procedure; where an appraisal provision applies it is a term of the policy.