Auto
Personal auto insurance covering liability, collision, comprehensive, uninsured/underinsured motorist, and auto physical damage claims. For business-owned vehicles, fleets, and hired/non-owned auto, see the Commercial Auto playbook.
Playbook Overview
Auto insurance claims generate a high volume of correspondence due to the frequency of auto losses and the multi-party nature of many auto claims. Correspondence must address both first-party (policyholder) and third-party (claimant) communications.
Jurisdiction Comparison Matrix
Acknowledgment, accept/deny, and payment deadlines alongside the no-fault / pip state rule for each state. Click a column header to sort; click a state to see full requirements.
50 of 50 states
| Alabama(AL) | 15 calendar days | 30 calendar days | 30 calendar days | No | High |
| Alaska(AK) | 10 business days | 15 business days | 30 business days | No | High |
| Arizona(AZ) | 10 business days | 15 business days | 30 calendar days | No | High |
| Arkansas(AR) | 15 business days | 15 business days | 10 business days | Yes | High |
| California(CA) | 15 calendar days | 40 calendar days | 30 calendar days | No | High |
| Colorado(CO) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 60 calendar days | 60 calendar days | No | Medium |
| Connecticut(CT) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | No | Medium |
| Delaware(DE) | 15 business days | 30 calendar days | 30 calendar days | Yes | High |
| Florida(FL) | 7 calendar days | 60 calendar days | 60 calendar days | Yes | High |
| Georgia(GA) | 15 calendar days | 15 calendar days after receiving proof of loss, or 30 calendar days from notice of claim if no proof of loss is required; 60 calendar days absolute maximum (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-52-.03(3) & (5)) | 10 calendar days | No | High |
| Hawaii(HI) | 15 business days | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | Yes | Medium |
| Idaho(ID) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | No | Medium |
| Illinois(IL) | 15 business days | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | Medium |
| Indiana(IN) | Promptly (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Promptly (no specific number) | No | Medium |
| Iowa(IA) | 15 calendar days | C30 (extendable with notice within the 30-day period) | 30 calendar days | No | High |
| Kansas(KS) | 10 business days | 15 business days | Promptly (no specific number) | Yes | High |
| Kentucky(KY) | 15 | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | Yes | High |
| Louisiana(LA) | 14 calendar days | REASONABLE (written offer to settle within C30 after receipt of satisfactory proofs of loss) | C30 (C60 for catastrophic residential property claims) | No | High |
| Maine(ME) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | C30 (for non-fire property claims after proof of loss is received); C60 (for fire policies after proof of loss is received and ascertainment of the loss is made) | No | Medium |
| Maryland(MD) | 15 business days | 15 business days | Promptly (no specific number) | Yes | High |
| Massachusetts(MA) | REASONABLE (Reasonably promptly per Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 3(9)(b)) | REASONABLE (Within a reasonable time after proof of loss per Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 3(9)(e); 15 days to notify intention to rebuild/repair per Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 99) | C30 (Within 30 days after statement of loss or executed proof of loss per Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 99) | YES (M.G.L. c. 90 § 34M) | Medium |
| Michigan(MI) | Promptly (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 60 calendar days | Yes | Medium |
| Minnesota(MN) | 10 business days | B60 (after proof of loss) / B30 (after notification of claim, unless delayed and properly noticed) | B5 (from settlement agreement receipt or condition performance); C60 (after proof of loss and ascertainment under Standard Fire Policy) | Yes | High |
| Mississippi(MS) | Promptly (no specific number) | REASONABLE (case law) | REASONABLE (case law) | No | Medium |
| Missouri(MO) | 10 business days | 15 business days | Promptly (no specific number) | No | High |
| Montana(MT) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days to pay or discharge any duty, extendable to 60 calendar days with reasonable request for additional information; interest accrues after the 30/60 day period (Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-232(1)). Must affirm or deny within a reasonable time (§ 33-18-201(5)). | C30 (extendable to C60 if additional information was requested) | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | High |
| Nebraska(NE) | 15 calendar days | 15 calendar days | 15 calendar days | No | High |
| Nevada(NV) | 20 business days | 30 business days | 30 calendar days | No | High |
| New Hampshire(NH) | 10 business days | No strict deadline; must decide within 5 working days of receiving requested documentation or send a delay letter (N.H. Admin. Code Ins 1002.05(d)-(e)) | 5 business days | No | High |
| New Jersey(NJ) | 10 business days | 30 calendar days | 10 business days | Yes | High |
| New Mexico(NM) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Promptly (no specific number) | No | Medium |
| New York(NY) | 15 business days | 15 business days | 5 business days | Yes | High |
| North Carolina(NC) | 30 calendar days | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 60 calendar days | No | Medium |
| North Dakota(ND) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Promptly (no specific number) | Yes | Medium |
| Ohio(OH) | 15 calendar days | 21 calendar days | 10 calendar days | No | High |
| Oklahoma(OK) | 30 calendar days | 60 calendar days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | No | Medium |
| Oregon(OR) | 30 calendar days | 30 calendar days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | Yes | High |
| Pennsylvania(PA) | 10 business days | 15 business days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | Yes | High |
| Rhode Island(RI) | 15 calendar days | 21 calendar days | 30 calendar days | No | High |
| South Carolina(SC) | Promptly (no specific number) | Promptly (no specific number) | 90 calendar days | No | Medium |
| South Dakota(SD) | C30 (SDCL § 58-33-67(1)); PROMPTLY (SDCL § 58-12-34(2)); C15 to provide forms (SDCL § 58-12-34(13)) | REASONABLE (SDCL § 58-12-34(7)) | PROMPTLY (SDCL § 58-12-34(4)) | No | Medium |
| Tennessee(TN) | 30 calendar days | 60 calendar days | 30 calendar days | No | Medium |
| Texas(TX) | C15 (B15 presumed reasonably prompt under 28 TAC § 21.203(2)) | B15 (extendable to C45 with notice) | 5 business days | No | High |
| Utah(UT) | 15 calendar days | 30 calendar days | 30 calendar days | Yes | High |
| Vermont(VT) | 10 business days | 15 business days | B10 (C60 for fire insurance) | No | High |
| Virginia(VA) | 15 calendar days | C15 (extendable with notice) | Promptly (no specific number) | No | High |
| Washington(WA) | 10 business days | 15 business days | 15 business days | Yes | High |
| West Virginia(WV) | 15 business days | 10 business days | 15 business days | No | High |
| Wisconsin(WI) | 10 calendar days | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | No | Medium |
| Wyoming(WY) | Promptly (no specific number) | 45 calendar days | 45 calendar days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | Medium |
Auto Case Law
Recent and frequently cited auto decisions across the 50 states. State abbreviation appears after each case name — follow through to a jurisdiction page for the full list.
- Case LawClosing LettersAuto
An insurer's violation of the Oregon Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act (ORS 746.230) can serve as the basis for a negligence per se tort claim (bad faith).
- Case Law
Grothe v. Kushnivich, 24 Wash. App. 2d 755 (WA)
521 P.3d 228 (2022)
Diminished ValueAutoThe Washington Court of Appeals explicitly recognized a vehicle owner's right to recover post-repair residual diminished value (often termed "stigma damages") and loss of use damages from a third-party tortfeasor under Washington common law, asserting that such damages do not constitute a double recovery even if repair costs have already been paid. Current Status: Good law.
- Case Law
Pinto v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (CA)
61 Cal. App. 5th 676 (2021)
Bad FaithDuty to DefendAutoCommercial AutoCyberGeneral LiabilityInland / Ocean MarineProfessional LiabilityClarified the third-party failure-to-settle standard. Rejecting a strict liability approach, the court held that failing to accept a reasonable settlement demand within limits is not bad faith per se. The plaintiff must explicitly prove that the insurer's failure to settle was unreasonable under the circumstances .
- Case Law
Zubillaga v. Allstate Indemnity Co (CA)
12 Cal. App. 5th 1017 (2017)
Bad FaithAutoInland / Ocean MarineHeld that an insurer cannot rely on the genuine dispute doctrine by citing an expert report that is outdated and fails to consider the insured's subsequent medical treatments. Binding (CA Court of Appeal) Good Law; limits the abuse of expert reliance.
- Case Law
Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co (CA)
63 Cal. 4th 363 (2016)
Bad FaithAutoCommercial PropertyGeneral LiabilityHomeownersProfessional LiabilityFor the purpose of calculating the constitutional ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, Brandt fees awarded by a trial court post-verdict must be included in the compensatory damages denominator . Context: The insurer wrongfully limited a paralyzed veteran's hospital stay benefits.
- Case Law
Graciano v. Mercury General Corp (CA)
231 Cal. App. 4th 414 (2014)
Bad FaithAutoLack of Coverage: Because the tort of bad faith is predicated on the breach of the implied covenant within a contract, there can be no bad faith liability for failure to investigate or settle if there is ultimately no coverage under the policy (McMillin Scripps North Partnership v. Royal Ins. Co., 19 Cal. App. 4th 1215 (1993); Samson v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 30 Cal. 3d 220 (1981)) .
Show 6 more cases
- Case Law
Reid v. Mercury Ins. Co (CA)
220 Cal. App. 4th 262 (2013)
Bad FaithDuty to DefendStatus UpdatesAutoGeneral LiabilityProfessional Liabilityheld that an insurer does not necessarily have an affirmative duty to settle absent a demand, subsequent commentary and cases (such as the principles affirmed in Hedayati and the Restatement of Liability Insurance) emphasize that insurers must proactively communicate with the insured about the risks of litigation.
- Case Law
Ibrahim v. AIU Ins. Co., 177 Wash. App. 504 (WA)
312 P.3d 998 (2013)
Diminished ValueAutoDistinguished "stigma damages" from "diminished value." The court held that under an Underinsured Motorist (UIM) policy explicitly limiting the insurer's liability to restoring the vehicle to its "pre-loss condition," the insurer is not liable for the intangible "stigma" of the accident if the vehicle has been perfectly restored physically. Current Status: Good law.
- Case Law
People's Ins. Counsel Div. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 214 Md. App. 438 (MD)
76 A.3d 517 (2013)
Closing 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
Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 173 Wash. 2d 264 (WA)
267 P.3d 998 (2011)
Diminished ValueAutoA 5-4 majority held that standard auto insurance policies promising to repair or replace a vehicle with "other of like kind and quality" are ambiguous and must be interpreted to the benefit of the insured. Thus, the insurer's obligation to "repair" includes compensating the insured for the post-repair inherent diminished value of the vehicle. Current Status: Good law.
- Case LawDiminished ValueAutoCommercial Auto
the court recognized that applying the strict Johnson rule to an appreciating asset (in that case, a rare Ford GT sports car) would fail to make the plaintiff whole . Thus, if a vehicle appreciates in market value from the time of its acquisition, a third-party recovery of both repair costs and proven diminished value is permitted .
- Case Law
McCoy v. Progressive West Ins. Co (CA)
171 Cal. App. 4th 785 (2009)
Bad FaithAutoInland / Ocean MarineAbsence of an Effective Settlement Demand (Third-Party): An insurer cannot be sued for failure to settle if the third-party plaintiff never made a reasonable, clear, and unconditional demand to settle within policy limits, or if the insurer was deprived of adequate time to investigate (Reid v. Mercury Ins. Co., 220 Cal. App. 4th 262 (2013); Graciano v. Mercury General Corp., 231 Cal. App.
Historical court cases are for reference only and may be superseded, distinguished, or abrogated.
Applicable Letter Templates
- Denial / Closureappeal
- Denial / Closurefull denial
- Payment & Settlementpayment
- FNOL / Intakeacknowledgment
- Denial / Closurepartial denial
- Post-Resolutionclosing
- Denial / Closurefull denial
- Denial / Closurepartial denial
- Payment & Settlementpayment
- Coverage Investigationreservation of rights
- Coverage Investigationstatus
- Post-Resolutionsubrogation
- FNOL / Intakeacknowledgment
- Coverage Investigationstatus
- Denial / Closurefull denial
- Denial / Closurepartial denial
- Payment & Settlementpayment
- Coverage Investigationcoverage investigation
- Coverage Investigationreservation of rights
