North Dakota Claims Compliance

Key regulatory requirements, correspondence deadlines, and mandated forms for North Dakota (ND).

Quick Reference

Key Deadlines

Acknowledgment
REASONABLE
Accept/Deny
REASONABLE
Investigation
PROMPTLY
Payment
PROMPTLY
Status Updates
No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found

Requirements

  • Mandated Forms
  • Catastrophe Rules
  • Separate P&C / Life & Health
  • Fraud Warning
  • Depreciation Notice
  • E-Delivery (with_consent)

Regulatory Authority

North Dakota Insurance Department (Insurance Commissioner)

North Dakota Insurance Department, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505-0320; Phone: (800) 247-0560; Website: www.nd.gov/ndins

Bad Faith: N.D. Cent. Code § 26.1-04-03(9)

Key Statutes

  • N.D. Cent. Code § 26.1-04-03
Last reviewed: April 1, 2026

North Dakota 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

No specific statutory language mandated beyond standard disclosures.

LOB-Specific Requirements

Regulatory requirements for North Dakota, grouped by line of business. Select a chip to filter.

Unfair Claims Practices Act RefStatutory
N.D. Cent. Code § 26.1-04-03(9)
Prompt Payment Statute RefStatutory
N.D. Cent. Code § 26.1-04-03(9)(d)
Proof Of Loss RequirementsStatutory
Completion and submission triggers the 'reasonable time' deadline to affirm or deny coverage (N.D. Cent. Code § 26.1-04-03(9)(j))
Suit Limitation PeriodStatutory
6 years (N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16); restrictive policy limits are generally void (N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-05)

North Dakota Case Law

Published decisions that shape claim-handling and correspondence practice in North Dakota. Pair these with the statutory deadlines above.

StatutoryCase LawReg. Bulletin

  • Seifert v. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co

    497 N.W.2d 694 (1993)

    Case Law
    Bad FaithCyber

    (discussing Corwin Chrysler-Plymouth). URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/north-dakota/supreme-court/1993/920109-3.html

  • Dvorak v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co

    1993

    Case Law
    Status UpdatesGeneral LiabilityProfessional Liability

    that N.D.C.C. § 26.1-04-03 does not create a private right of action for insureds . Instead, a single act of misconduct is insufficient to trigger statutory penalties; the plaintiff must show the insurer engaged in the prohibited conduct with a "frequency indicating a general business practice" .

  • Fetch v. Quam

    2001

    Case Law
    Status UpdatesGeneral LiabilityProfessional Liability

    the gravamen of the bad faith test is whether the insurer acts unreasonably in handling an insured's claim . An insurer acts unreasonably by failing to compensate an insured for a covered loss unless it has a proper cause for refusing payment .

  • Hartman v. Estate of Miller

    2003

    Case Law
    Status UpdatesProfessional Liability

    and Fetch v. Quam (2001), the gravamen of the bad faith test is whether the insurer acts unreasonably in handling an insured's claim . An insurer acts unreasonably by failing to compensate an insured for a covered loss unless it has a proper cause for refusing payment .

  • Hartman v. Miller

    2003

    Case Law
    Status UpdatesGeneral Liability

    . In Hartman, the North Dakota Supreme Court definitively stated: "The gravamen of the test for bad faith is whether the insurer acts unreasonably in handling an insured's claim" .

  • Volk v. Wisconsin Mortgage Assurance Co

    1991

    Case Law
    Status UpdatesGeneral Liability

    and reaffirmed in Dvorak, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the insurer engaged in the prohibited conduct with a "'frequency indicating a general business practice'" . A single failure to provide a status update on a commercial liability claim cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a violation of Chapter 26.1-04 .

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.