Connecticut Claims Compliance
Key regulatory requirements, correspondence deadlines, and mandated forms for Connecticut (CT).
Catastrophe-Specific Rules Apply
Connecticut has catastrophe-specific rules that may modify standard deadlines and require additional consumer notices during declared emergency periods. Check the Disclosures tab for details.
Quick Reference
Key Deadlines
Requirements
- Mandated Forms
- Catastrophe Rules
- Separate P&C / Life & Health
- Fraud Warning
- Depreciation Notice
- E-Delivery (with_consent)
Regulatory Authority
Connecticut Insurance Department (CID)
Connecticut Insurance Department, Consumer Affairs, P.O. Box 816, Hartford, CT 06142-0816; Phone: (860) 297-3900 or 1-800-203-3447; Website: https://portal.ct.gov/cid
Bad Faith: Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816
Lines of Business
Key Statutes
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-307
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816
Connecticut handles claims correspondence according to specific state regulations. Requirements vary depending on the line of business and specific claim circumstances.
Acknowledgment
Every claim must be acknowledged within a reasonable time of receipt. The acknowledgment should identify the insurance policy and coverage at issue.
Denial
A written denial must be issued within a reasonable time. The denial must reference the specific policy provisions, conditions, or exclusions relied upon.
Statutory Language
DOI contact info required in concluding paragraph for personal risk insurance.
LOB-Specific Requirements
Regulatory requirements for Connecticut, grouped by line of business. Select a chip to filter.
- SOL Notice In Denial Required
- Yes
- Unfair Claims Practices Act RefStatutory
- Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-816(6)
- Prompt Payment Statute RefStatutory
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-307
- HO Specific RequirementsStatutory
- The Standard Fire Insurance Policy of the State of Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-307
- Catastrophe ProvisionsStatutory
- DOI may establish a mediation program for open claims arising from a catastrophic event with a declared state of emergency (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-10a)
- Proof Of Loss RequirementsStatutory
- If insured fails to render proof of loss, designated mortgagee must render proof of loss within 60 days of notice (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-307)
- Suit Limitation PeriodStatutory
- 24 months after inception of the loss (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-307); up to one year after written denial for crumbling concrete foundation claims (PA 17-2 June Special Session § 341)
Connecticut Case Law
Published decisions that shape claim-handling and correspondence practice in Connecticut. Pair these with the statutory deadlines above.
- Case LawStatus UpdatesGeneral Liability
the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized an independent cause of action in tort for bad faith arising from an insurer's breach of its common-law duty of good faith .
- Status UpdatesGeneral Liability
further clarified that bad faith requires the breach of an express duty that implicates the insurer's obligations under the policy . Thus, the content of communications must honestly reflect the contractual realities; however, courts have not created a common-law mandate requiring insurers to include specific data points in routine status updates.
- Case Law
Damico v. Dalton
1984
Diminished ValueCommercial Autoand more contemporary decisions such as Alexander v. Bailey (2013) and Sheldon v. Soucy (2014) .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesWorkers' Comp
the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that independent civil tort actions alleging bad faith processing of workers' compensation claims are prohibited .
- Case Law
Dorfman v. Smith
2022
Bad FaithAutoCommercial PropertyConnecticut recognizes an absolute common law litigation privilege that protects insurers from bad faith, emotional distress, and unfair trade practice claims arising from statements made or actions taken during the course of litigation (e.g., asserting unfounded affirmative defenses, withholding witness statements in discovery).
- Case LawReservation of RightsProfessional Liability
Definition of a "Claim": Reserving rights regarding whether a demand letter or email constitutes a formal "Claim" triggering coverage .
Show 7 more cases
- Status UpdatesGeneral Liability
which established the insurer's duty to accept a good-faith settlement offer within policy limits .
- Case LawBad FaithCommercial PropertyHomeowners
Connecticut imposes a duty on the insurer to exercise reasonable care and good faith when an opportunity to settle within policy limits is presented . The test is effectively a blend of negligence and good faith principles: whether the insurer used "that care and diligence which a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the management of his own business" .
- Case LawReservation of RightsGeneral Liability
establishes that an insurer must either refuse to defend (risking breach of contract) or defend under a proper reservation of rights . The ROR letter must be issued within a "reasonable time" and must specifically articulate the policy provisions and factual bases upon which the insurer may rely to deny indemnity .
- Reservation of RightsGeneral Liability
and Jenkins v. Indemnity Insurance Co. (1964), establishes that an insurer must either refuse to defend (risking breach of contract) or defend under a proper reservation of rights . The ROR letter must be issued within a "reasonable time" and must specifically articulate the policy provisions and factual bases upon which the insurer may rely to deny indemnity .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesProfessional Liability
the Second Circuit, applying Connecticut law, established a proactive duty regarding coverage positions . The court held that an insurer must notify its insured if it disputes insurance coverage .
- Case LawDuty to DefendGeneral Liability
. The Supreme Court reiterated that it is "well settled in Connecticut that a carrier who wrongfully breaches its duty to defend forfeits its policy-based coverage defenses for indemnity" .
- Case Law
Stults v. Palmer
1954
Diminished ValueCommercial AutoDamico v. Dalton (1984), and more contemporary decisions such as Alexander v. Bailey (2013) and Sheldon v. Soucy (2014) .
Historical court cases are for reference only and may be superseded, distinguished, or abrogated.
Applicable Letter Templates
No letter templates currently found for this jurisdiction.