Maryland Claims Compliance
Key regulatory requirements, correspondence deadlines, and mandated forms for Maryland (MD).
Quick Reference
Key Deadlines
Requirements
- Mandated Forms
- Catastrophe Rules
- Separate P&C / Life & Health
- Fraud Warning
- Depreciation Notice
- E-Delivery (no specific statutory or regulatory requirement found)
Regulatory Authority
Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA)
Address: 200 St. Paul Place, Suite 2700, Baltimore, MD 21202; Phone: 410-468-2000 / Toll-Free: 800-492-6836; Website: https://insurance.maryland.gov
Bad Faith: Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27-1001; Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1701
Lines of Business
Key Statutes
- Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27-301 through § 27-306
- COMAR 31.15.07.01 through 31.15.07.08
Maryland 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 15 business days of receipt. The acknowledgment should identify the insurance policy and coverage at issue.
Denial
A written denial must be issued within 15 business days. The denial must reference the specific policy provisions, conditions, or exclusions relied upon.
Statutory Language
Specific fraud warning and bold-print DOI contact info required.
LOB-Specific Requirements
Regulatory requirements for Maryland, grouped by line of business. Select a chip to filter.
- SOL Notice In Denial Required
- YES (For unrepresented claimants, written notice that an applicable statute of limitations may bar their rights in the future, COMAR 31.15.07.04(C))
- Unfair Claims Practices Act RefStatutory
- Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27-301 et seq.
- Prompt Payment Statute RefStatutory
- Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27-303(5) and § 27-304(5)
- HO Specific RequirementsStatutory
- Homeowner's Insurance Policies, Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-201 et seq.
- Proof Of Loss RequirementsStatutory
- An insured is not prevented from recovering for failing to give a sworn statement in proof of loss unless they fail to provide it within 15 days after receiving the insurer's written request (Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-111(b)(2))
- Suit Limitation PeriodStatutory
- Up to two years after the date of loss to file a claim for the difference between actual cash value and replacement cost for completed repairs (Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-213)
Maryland Case Law
Published decisions that shape claim-handling and correspondence practice in Maryland. Pair these with the statutory deadlines above.
- Case LawClosing LettersAuto
/Requirement: The burden of proof rests on the claimant to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an insurer acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to pay a claim.
- Case Law
Mesmer v. Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund, 353 Md. 241
725 A.2d 1053 (1999)
Status UpdatesCommercial AutoClarified the dichotomy in Maryland insurance law, holding that third-party claims allow for a tort action for bad faith failure to settle due to the insurer's exclusive control of the defense, whereas first-party claims are strictly contractual and do not give rise to a common law tort of bad faith. Current Status: Good law; routinely cited to distinguish first-party and third-party obligations...
- Case Law
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 334 Md. 381
639 A.2d 652 (1994)
Status UpdatesCommercial AutoReaffirmed the principles of White, noting that an insurer is obligated by a continuing duty to negotiate in good faith to settle a claim within policy limits. Current Status: Good law.
- Case Law
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. White, 248 Md. 324
236 A.2d 269 (1967)
Status UpdatesCommercial AutoEstablished the Maryland standard for third-party bad faith failure to settle.
- Case Law
Sweeten, Administrator v. National Mutual Ins. Co., 233 Md. 52
194 A.2d 817 (1963)
Status UpdatesCommercial AutoRecognized that a liability insurer's exclusive control over the investigation, settlement, and defense of a claim creates a potential conflict of interest, giving rise to a fiduciary duty to the insured. Current Status: Good law; foundational precedent upon which White and Mesmer were built. - Allstate Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 334 Md.
- Case LawReservation of RightsHomeownersProfessional Liability
the Supreme Court of Maryland addressed a situation where an insured was sued for both negligence (covered) and assault (excluded intentional act) . The Court recognized that the insurer-appointed defense attorney could theoretically conduct the defense in a way that resulted in a finding of intentional conduct, which would relieve the insurer of the duty to indemnify .
Show 10 more cases
- Case LawDiminished ValueCommercial Auto
The defining case that explicitly cemented inherent diminished value into Maryland law is Fred Frederick Motors, Inc. v. Krause, 12 Md. App. 62, 277 A.2d 464 (1971) . This case is considered the primary source of Maryland's diminished value law and is cited universally in property damage litigation within the state .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesInland / Ocean Marine
federal courts in the District of Maryland apply Maryland state law to determine burdens of proof, breach of contract, and bad faith in marine insurance disputes . Consequently, insurers handling marine claims in Maryland are bound by Maryland's statutory timelines, unfair claims settlement practices, and common-law bad faith doctrines .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesCommercial Property
and Mesmer v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (1999), the Maryland Court of Appeals definitively rejected the creation of a tort action for an insurer's bad faith failure to investigate, communicate, or pay a first-party claim .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesInland / Ocean Marine
and GEICO Marine Ins. Co. v. Carnes (2021), federal courts in the District of Maryland apply Maryland state law to determine burdens of proof, breach of contract, and bad faith in marine insurance disputes . Consequently, insurers handling marine claims in Maryland are bound by Maryland's statutory timelines, unfair claims settlement practices, and common-law bad faith doctrines .
- Case LawDiminished ValueCommercial Auto
Following Krause, a subsequent dispute arose regarding which party bore the burden of proving that the combined cost of repairs and diminished value did not exceed the vehicle's pre-accident value. This was resolved in the leading case of Kruvant v. Dickerman, 18 Md. App. 1, 305 A.2d 227 (1973) .
- Case LawStatus UpdatesCommercial Property
the Maryland Court of Appeals definitively rejected the creation of a tort action for an insurer's bad faith failure to investigate, communicate, or pay a first-party claim . Consequently, any duties an insurer owed to its insured regarding claims handling and status updates were strictly confined to the explicit text of the insurance policy.
- Case LawReservation of RightsHomeowners
ROR based solely on claims for punitive damages. No. Roussos v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1995) .
- Bad FaithWorkers' Comp
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Document 24 citing Cts & Jud. Proc. § 3-1701(f) delay safe harbor.
- Case LawBad FaithCommercial Property
1. The severity of the plaintiff's injuries giving rise to the likelihood of a verdict greatly in excess of the policy limits .
- Case LawReservation of RightsCyber
and subsequently reaffirmed in decades of jurisprudence, Maryland courts hold that the scope of coverage is not expanded by an insurer's failure to include an exclusion in a reservation of rights letter, nor is it expanded by the failure to send a letter at all .
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.