First Party Property Claims Desk Reference - Munich Re€¦ · 2 Notice of Claim and Proof of Loss...

First Party Property Claims Desk Reference

3rd Edition, 2014

Munich ReIn the US, Munich Re provides access to a full range of property /casualty reinsurance and specialty insurance products through Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., American Modern Insurance Group, and Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. Together, we deal with the issues that affect society and work to devise cutting-edge solutions to render tomorrow’s world insurable. Our clients trust us to develop solutions for the whole spectrum of reinsurance — from traditional reinsurance agreements to the management of complex specialty reinsurance risks. Our recipe for success: we anticipate risks early on and deliver solutions tailored to clients’ needs, creating opportunities to achieve sustained profitable growth.

1 Introduction

2 Notice of Claim and Proof of Loss

23 Reporting Arson and Fraudulent Claims

42 Valuation

51 Valued Policy Laws

61 Date of Loss Determination for Progressive Losses

65 Appraisal

85 Selected Subrogation Topics

99 Building Related Codes

126 Building Related Codes In Effect By State

Table of Contents

Edited by

Edward J. RyanMunich Reinsurance America, Inc.555 College Road EastPrinceton, NJ 08543609.243.4200www.munichreamerica.com

Munich Re First Party Property Claims Desk Reference 1

Introduction

This publication is intended to be used as a desk reference to assist property claim professionals as they evaluate exposures and their company’s rights and duties on reported losses.

It provides an overview of common issues that arise in the adjustment process and the manner in which states have interpreted carriers’ obligations arising from those issues, including pertinent response time frames for some of the topics. This 3rd Edition has been updated to reflect changes in the statutes and case citations referenced in the publication since it was last distributed in 2010. Readers of prior editions will note this 3rd Edition includes cases which were not previously cited in earlier versions of the desk reference. Recognizing that cases can be interpreted differently by attorneys and/or judges, during the process of updating the legal research, we have taken a more expansive view of reported cases, in order to include as many cases as may be potentially relevant. Since these reviews only provide a brief summary, it is intended to be used only as a guideline. A complete reading and analysis of the cases, coupled with specific legal opinions of the applicable jurisdictional laws, must be completed before significant decisions are made. In providing this information, the authors do not intend to provide legal advice. The 3rd Edition of this compendium also contains updated, state specific information on building related codes, including a description of the codes affecting building construction and a state by state reference guide for code source contact information. Users are reminded that, as with all losses, actual claim scenarios are fact and jurisdiction specific, and may require referral to appropriate legal or engineering expertise to obtain case specific interpretation and analysis. We wish to acknowledge, with thanks, the contributions of the firm of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP (www.butlerpappas.com), who conducted the research on the statutes and case citations, and the firm of Bracken Engineering (www.brackenengineering.com), who conducted research on the relevant building codes. Without their contributions this booklet would not have been possible.

2 Munich Re First Party Property Claims Desk Reference

Notice of claim, proof of loss, and time limitations within which to bring suit

An insured must provide its insurer with notice of any losses incurred in order to enable the insurer to investigate and obtain enough information about the loss to make an accurate evaluation and appropriate settlement. As a general rule, policies require the insured provide notice within a reasonable time. With regard to the issue of the effect of the insured’s failure to give prompt notice of a claim, some courts hold the claim will only be barred if the insurer is prejudiced by the late notice. Other courts look at the circumstances for the delay. The following chart addresses this issue and the rules of the various jurisdictions.

Once notice is given to the insurer, the insured is generally required to submit a proof of loss. Some insurers require the insured use specific forms, and some jurisdictions require the insurer provide the forms to the insured within a set time period. The grounds for acceptance or rejection of the proof of loss vary among the states, and are outlined in the chart that follows.

After the insured has satisfied the notice of claim and proof of loss requirements, the insurer must determine whether and to what extent it will pay the claim. Many states have statutory provisions requiring the insurer pay undisputed claims within a certain number of days following receipt of the proof of loss and imposing penalties for its failure to do so. These statutes are identified and the requirements set forth in this section. Please note that regardless of the existence of a statutory deadline, a claim also may be subject to a respective state’s fair claims handling act. Therefore, you should be cognizant of this when evaluating timing of payments.

First-party property insurance policies often include a time limitation within which the insured must file suit against the insurer, if the insured intends to do so. When the policy’s time limitation differs from the state’s applicable statute of limitations period, the issue arises whether the contractual modification of the statutory period is valid and enforceable. Some courts have addressed the issue and held the policy provisions would be enforced; others have restricted the provisions. Statutes in various states deal with the issue. The following chart identifies states’ responses to the time limitation discrepancy.


Notice of claim, proof of loss, and time limitations within which to bring suitJurisdiction Policy Time Limitation to Bring Suit Effect of Insured’s

Failure to Give Prompt Notice of Claim

Grounds for Acceptance/Rejection of Proof of Loss

Time Within Which Insurer Must Pay Claim(Unless policy requires payment in less time)

Enforced? Restricted?

Statutory Restriction

Alabama No first party property cases.

No first party property cases.

To determine reasonableness of delay, court must consider length of delay and reasons.Hackleburg Church of Christ v. Great Am. Ins. Cos., 675 So.2d 1309 (Ala. App. 1995)

Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request.Ala. Code §27-14-26Misrepresentation in proof of loss will not void policy unless made with actual intent to deceive as to material matter.Ala. Code §27-14-28

No first party property cases or statutes.

Alaska Not enforced Unless insurer would be prejudiced.Estes v. Alaska Guar. Ass’n., 774 P. 2d 1315 (Alaska 1989)


Insurer must establish it suffered such prejudice as time limit was intended to avoid. Estes v. Alaska Ins. Guar. Ass’n., 774 P. 2d 1315 (Alaska 1989)

Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request.Alaska Stat. §21.42.300


Arizona Enforced Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co., 73 P. 3d 1252 (Ariz. App. 2003)

But insurer may be estopped to assert if enforcement would “work an unjust forfeiture.”Zuckerman v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 650 P. 2d 441 (Ariz. 1982)

Not less than one year from date of occurrence of event resulting in the loss, but may be longer.Ariz. Rev. Stat. §20-1115(A)(3).

Insurer must show prejudice by delay.Nangle v. Farmers Ins. Co., 73 P.3d 1252 (Ariz. App. 2003)

Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request.Ariz. Rev. Stat. §20-1129

Absent specific policy requirement, any method that advises insurer of loss so as to enable it to adequately consider its rights and liabilities is sufficient. “Substantial compliance” with a proof of loss provision is sufficient. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz., 485 P.2d 837 (Ariz. App. 1971)

Pay within 30 days after receipt of acceptable proof of loss absent good faith denial.Ariz. Rev. Stat. §20-462








Arkansas No first party property cases.


Formal notice required by policy not necessary where adjusters investigate loss. Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. v. Friedman, 174 S.W. 215 (Ark. 1915)

Insurer shall provide forms within 20 days after loss reported.Ark. Code §23-79-126

Where an agreement does not specify a time period in which action is to be taken, the losses must be paid within a reasonable time. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Arkansas, Inc. v. Guyer, 386 S.W. 3d 682 (Ark.App.2011) citing Cumbie, supra; McHalffey v. Nationwide Mut. Life Ins. Co., 76 Ark.App. 235, 61 S.W.3d 231 (2001).

California Enforced Absent specific statutory authority to the contrary, and must be plain, clear, conspicuous, and not unreasonable. Spray, Gould & Bowers v. Associated Internat’l Ins. Co., 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552 (Cal. App. 1999)


Insurer must show substantial prejudice by untimely notice.Doheny Park Terrace Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 157 (App. 2005)

Insured’s best evidence sufficient for proof of loss. Cal.Ins.Code §552

Defects waived if not specified. Cal.Ins.Code §553


Colorado Enforced Grant Family Farms, Inc. v. Colorado Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 155 P.3d 537 (Colo. App. 2007)


Notice to insurer’s local agent on the day after loss satisfied policy requirement for “immediate” notice.Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Smith, 3 Colo. 422 (Colo. 1877)

Substantial compliance with policy terms required. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Smith, 3 Colo. 422 (Colo. 1877)









Connecticut EnforcedA provision requiring suit to be brought within one year of the loss is a valid contractual obligation.Monteiro v. American Home Assur. Co., 177 Conn.281 (Conn. 1979)

Not less than one year from time loss occurs.C.G.S.A. §38a-290

Coverage not forfeited if insurer not prejudiced.National Publishing Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 949 A.2d 1203 (Conn. 2008)

Failure of insurer to object to delay in providing proof of loss constitutes waiver. Danulevich v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 421 A.2d 559 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1980)


Delaware No first party property cases.

Residential / Homeowners policies: not less than 1 year from the date of denial of the claim.Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §8106

Immediate notice means notice within a reasonable time.Downs v. German Alliance Ins. Co., 67 A. 146 (Del. Super. St. 1906)

Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request.Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, §2722

Proof of loss must provide all information called for by the policy, if possible. Downs v. German Alliance Ins. Co., 67 A. 146 (Del. Super. St. 1906)


District of Columbia

EnforcedContractual provisions limiting the period within which insurance policy holders may validly initiate a lawsuit are generally enforceable. Nkpado v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 697 F.Supp.2d 94 (U.S.D.C. 2010) (upholding enforcement of 2-year limitation).



Denial of claim before proof of loss is due constitutes waiver of proof of loss time requirement. General Cas. Co. v. Gunion, 99 A.2d 643 (App. D.C. 1953)









Florida Restricted Provision less than time provided by statute of limitations is void.Fla. Stat. §95.03

An action for breach of a property insurance contract must be brought 5 years from the date of loss.Fla. Stat. §95.11(e)

Failure to comply gives rise to presumption of prejudice. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Editorial America, S.A., 374 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. App. 1979)

Notice of windstorm or hurricane claim must be given within 3 years after the hurricane made landfall or the windstorm caused damage, or the claim is barred. Fla. Stat. §627.70132

Insurer must furnish forms upon request.Fla. Stat. §627.425

No particular form required; substantial compliance sufficient.General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. American Ins. Co., 50 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1931)

Pay or deny no later than 90 days after initial notice of claim, notwithstanding other policy provisions. Fla. Stat. §627.70131

Within 20 days after written settlement agreement. Fla. Stat. §627.4265

Georgia Restricted See Morrill v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 666 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. App. 2008)

Not less favorable than two years set in standard fire policy.GA ADC section 120-2-19-.01 and 120-2-10-.02

Failure to provide notice within time required does not bar action if notice provided within reasonable time and pursuant to other policy provisions.Theo v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 109 S.E.2d 53 (Ga. App. 1959)

Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request.Ga. Code Ann. §33-24-39

Proof of loss under policy is condition precedent to insurer’s liability. Whitehead v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 543 F.S. 967 (N.D. Ga. 1982)

Pay or good faith denial within 60 days after demand.Ga. Code Ann. §33-4-6

Hawaii EnforcedChristiansen v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 967 P. 2d 639 (Haw. App. 1998), aff’d in part, rev’d in part 963 P.2d 345 (Haw. 1998)

Not less than 1 year from date of loss.Haw. Rev. Stat. §431:10-221


Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request. Haw. Rev. Stat. §431:10-235

Denial of claim, express or implied, may waive proof of loss requirement.Best Place, Inc. v. Penn America Ins. Co., 920 P.2d 334 (Haw. 1996)









Idaho RestrictedSunshine Min. Co. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 684 P. 2d 1002 (Idaho 1984) (holding standard fire policy statute unconstitutional)

5 years.Idaho Code §5-216


Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request.Idaho Code §41-1831

Proof of loss need not prove amount of damages with mathematical certainty. Boel v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 43 P.3d 768 (Idaho 2002)

Affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof of loss completed.Idaho Code §41-1329

Illinois EnforcedAtwood v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 363 Ill.App.3d 86, 845 N.E.2d 68 (Ill.App.2d Dist.2006)


Where notice is late, issue is whether reasonable notice has been given, and not whether insurer was prejudiced. Mitchell Buick & Oldsmobile Sales, Inc. v. National Dealer Services, Inc., 485 N.E.2d 1281 (Ill. App. 1985)

Information adequate to inform insurer as to nature and extent of loss sufficient, even without filing formal proof of loss. First Nat’l Bank of Highland Park v. Boston Ins. Co., 149 N.E.2d 420 (Ill. App. 1958)


Indiana EnforcedRockford Mut. Ins. Co. f. Pirtle, 911 N.E. 2d 60 (Ind. App. 209)

Not less than 2 years from date of loss. Real property of not more than 4 residential units, one of which is insured’s principle place of residence, in Indiana.I.C. §27-1-13-17

Where policy provides for notice within stated period, insured must comply as condition precedent to recovery — substantial compliance is permitted. Ebert v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co., 303 N.E.2d 693 (Ind. App. 1973)

Requirements of written notice and verified proofs of loss are also valid although easily waived. If insurer is dissatisfied with proof of loss provided, it should advise the insured of its demand for further proof or the requirements may be waived.Huff v. Travelers Indem. Co., 363 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. 1977)


Iowa EnforcedSee Thomas v. United Fire and Cas. Co., 426 N.W. 2d 396 (Iowa 1988) (fact that standard fire policy provides less time than action on written contract not constitutional violation)


Late notice must result in prejudice to insurer to affect right of recovery.Pirkl v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Ass’n, 348 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 1984)

Failure to comply with policy requirements excusable if insured acted with reasonable diligence. Woodard v. Security Ins. Co., 207 N.W. 351 (Iowa 1926)









Kansas EnforcedDwelling-House Ins. Co. of Boston Mass. v. Osborn, 1 Kan.App.197, 40 P. 1099 (Kan.App.E.D. 1895)


Insured’s failure to provide notice pursuant to both policy conditions and Kansas law barred insured’s claim against insurer. B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2254436 (U.S. Dist. Ct. Kansas)

Fire or tornado loss: Upon written request, insurer shall furnish forms with directions within 10 days of receiving notice Kan. Stat. Ann. §40-924

Untimely proof of loss does not defeat recovery, absent forfeiture provision.Wilson v. German American Ins. Co., 133 P. 715 (Kan. 1913)


Kentucky EnforcedSee Webb v. Kentucky Farm Bur. Ins. Co., 577 S.W.2d 17 (Ky. App. 1978) (no statutory prohibition against shortening statutory period of limitations)



Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request.Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §304.14-270

Insured’s failure to file proof of loss within required time precluded recovery. Davis v. American States Ins. Co., 562 S.W.2d 653 (Ky. App. 1977)

Not more than 30 days from date of satisfactory notice and proof of claim furnished. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §304.12-235

Louisiana EnforcedLouisiana Jt. Underwriters of Audubon Ins. v. Johnson, 20 So. 3d 528 (La. App. 2009)

Not less than 24 months after inception of loss certain first party policies; not less than 1 year for others.La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §22:868

Delay may be excused where strict compliance is impossible or unreasonable and the insured has used due diligence. Hayward v. Carolina Ins. Co., 51 S.2d 405 (La. App. 1951)

Insurer requiring proof of loss shall furnish form to claimant. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §22:878

Insured must fully apprise insurer of amount of damages. Louisiana Bag Co., Inc. v. Audubon Indem. Co., 975 So. 2d 187 (La. App. 2008)

Within 30 days after receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.Adjustment shall begin within 14 days after notice; within 30 days after notice for catastrophic loss. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22::1892








Maine RestrictedL & A United Grocers, Inc. v. Safeguard Ins. Co., 460 A.2d 587 (Me. 1983) (policy term will be extended to statutory period)



Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request. 24-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. §2423

Insurer waives proof of loss requirement where it denies all liability and insured relies on the denial in failing to submit proof of loss. Russell v. Granite State Fire Ins. Co., 116 A. 554 (Me. 1922)

Pay or dispute within 30 days after proof of loss received by insurer, unless additional information requested by insurer during that time, in which event undisputed claim not overdue until 30 days after receipt of additional required information. For standard fire policy, time period must be 60 days. 24-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. §2436

Maryland Restricted Void if shorter time than required by the law of the state. Md. Ins. Code §12-104

Insured may be prevented from recovering under policy if notice not provided within 15 days after receiving written notice for request from insurer. Md. Code, Ins. §19-111

Policy requirement was covenant rather than condition precedent; substantial compliance only required with regard to time in policy.Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Himelfarb, 736 A.2d 295 (Md. 1999)

Insured must provide proof of loss within 15 days after receiving written request from insurer for proof of loss. Md. Code, Ins. §19-111

Where insured gave information reasonably requested by insurer and promises to provide balance of information, substantial performance requirement is met.Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Himelfarb, 736 A.2d 295 (Md. 1999)









Massachusetts RestrictedGoldsmith v. Reliance Ins. Co. (228 N.E.2d 704, (Mass. 1967)

Not less than 2 years from time cause of action accrues.Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 175 §22, §99

Failure of insured to use due diligence and give notice of claim for property will result in forfeiture of the policy. Parker v. Farmers’ Fire Ins. Co., 61 N.E. 215 (Mass. 1901)

Insured need not provide sworn statement in proof of loss if insurer does not make written request after receiving notice and time for payment runs from receipt of notice. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 175 §102

Insurer must pay loss within 30 days after insured has filed sworn proof of loss for agreed figure and, if insurer fails to do so, it will be liable for interest commencing after expiration of 30–day period. M.G.L.A. c. 175, § 99.

Michigan EnforcedCarpenter v. Michigan Basic Prop. Ins. Ass’n, 2008 WL 2262168 (Mich. App.) (Homeowners)


For delay to be unreasonable, insurer must be prejudiced.Turner Cartage & Storage Co. v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 159 N.W.2d 863 (Mich. App. 1968)

Insurer to specify in writing what materials constitute satisfactory proof of loss not more than 30 days after receipt of claim, unless settled within 30 days.Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 500.2006

Claim must be timely paid: if proof of partial loss provided, within 60 days after receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 500.2006; Griswold Props., L.L.C. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 741 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. App. 2007)

Minnesota Enforced If no contrary statute applies and limitation is not unreasonably short.O’Reilly v. Allstate Ins. Co., 474 N.W. 2d 221 (Minn. App. 1991); Henning Nelson Const. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund American Life Ins. Co., 383 N.W. 2d 645 (Minn. 1986)


Failure to comply with notice requirement does not bar recovery absent prejudice from delay. Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits’ Ins. Ass’n, 615 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. 2000)

Submission of proof of loss was condition subsequent to recovery where insurer paid undisputed part of claim without submission of proof of loss. Nathe Bros., Inc. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 615 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. 2000)

Homeowners policy: insured must comply with proof of loss requirement within 60 days of written notice of requirement provided by insurer by certified mail along with forms. Minn. Stat. Ann. §65A.296









Mississippi No first party property cases.



Fire loss: Insurer must provide forms and directions regarding what proof is required within a reasonable time after receiving notice.Miss. Code Ann. §83-13-13


Missouri No first party property cases.


Where policy does not specify time period within which notice is required, notice is to be given within a reasonable time. Travers v. Universal Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 34 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. App. 2000)

Fire loss: Time fixed in policy for notice is not a condition precedent to insured’s right of recovery.Mo. Stat. Ann. §379.185

Fire loss: Insurer must furnish forms.Mo. Stat. Ann. §379.185

Untimely proof of loss will not preclude recovery where the insurer was not prejudiced.Schultz v. Queen Ins. Co., 399 S.W.2d 230 (Mo. App. 1966)


Montana Restricted School Dis. No. 1 of Silver Bow County v. Globe and Republic Ins. Co., 404 P.2d 889 (Mont. 1965)

Eight YearsM.C.A. §27-2-202


Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request. Mont. . Code Ann. §33-15-503

Substantial compliance sufficient where insurer does not object to proof of loss.Riefflin v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co., 521 P.2d 675 (Mont. 1974)

Pay or deny within 30 days after receipt of proof of loss, unless insurer makes reasonable request for additional information or documents, in which case pay or deny within 60 days. Mont. Code Ann. §33-18-232








Nebraska RestrictedWolf v. Farm Bur. Ins. Co., 205 N.W. 2d 640 (Neb. 1973)

Neb. Rev. St. § 44-357

Failure to strictly comply with policy requirement will not defeat recovery absent forfeiture provision. Keene Co-Op Grain and Supply Co. v. Farmers Union Inds. Mut., 128 N.W.2d 773 (Neb. 1964)

Reasonable information must be provided so insurer can form some estimate of its rights and duties before it is obligated to pay.Keene Co-Op Grain and Supply Co. v. Farmers Union Inds. Mut., 128 N.W.2d 773 (Neb. 1964)


Nevada RestrictedDavenport v. Republic Ins. Co., 97 Nev. 152 (Nev. 1981) (Holding 12 month limitation ambiguously worded and applying 12 month limitation to date of denial).



Upon receiving notice of claim, insurer shall promptly provide forms for proof of loss.Nev. Rev. Stat. §687B.220

Substantial compliance with proof of loss requirement allows insured to bring action against insurer.Davenport v. Republic Ins. Co., 97 Nev. 152 (Nev. 1981)


New Hampshire RestrictedHebert Mfg. Co. v. Northern Assur. Co., 236 A.2d 701 (NH. 1967)

12 months. RSA 407:15.

Timely notice is a condition precedent to insured’s right of recovery, but strict compliance may be excused.Hull v. Hartford Ins. Co., 128 A.2d 210 (N.H. 1956)


Amount of loss due and payable 60 days after receipt of proof of loss.Adjustment shall begin 15 days after notice of loss. N.H. Rev. Stat. §407:12








New Jersey EnforcedAzze v. Hanover Ins. Co., 765 A.2d 1093 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2001)


To defeat coverage by untimely notice, insurer must be prejudiced.Vuarnet Footwear, Inc. v. Sea-Rail Services, Corp., 759 A.2d 1230 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2000)

Fire loss: Failure of insured to provide proof of loss not deemed a waiver of any rights under policy unless insurer requests proof of loss in writing. N.J. Stat. Ann. §17:36-6

Where insurer is promptly and fully informed of details of the loss, substantial compliance sufficient, absent prejudice. Tell v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 375 A.2d 315 (NJ Dist. Ct. 1977)


New Mexico Enforced As long as time period is reasonable.Young v. Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc., 685 P.2d 953 (N.M. 1984)


Substantial compliance is all that is required.Green v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co., 746 P.2d 152 (N.M. 1987)

Upon receiving notice of claim, insurer shall promptly provide forms for proof of loss.N.M. Stat. Ann. §59A-18-27

Insurer cannot object to unsworn proof of loss if adjuster investigates and no verification or further information is demanded. Green v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co., 746 P.2d 152 (N.M. 1987)

Pay amount due within 45 days after requested proof of loss furnished, after which interest is owed. N.M. Stat. Ann. §59A-16-21

New York Enforced If reasonable and in writing.Penna v. Peerless Ins. Co., 510 F.S. 2d 199 (W.D. N.Y. 2007); Blanar v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 824 N.Y.S. 2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

N.Y. Standard Policy Form requires suit be brought within 24 months after inception of loss. New York Ins. Law §3404

Insurer need not show prejudice to deny untimely claim. Town Board of Poughkeepsie v. Continental Ins. Co., 623 N.Y.S. 2d 894 (N.Y. App.Div. 1995)

Insured deemed to comply with request for proof if provided within 60 days after insurer furnishes forms to insured. N.Y. Ins. Law §3407









North Carolina RestrictedLanier v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2009 WL 926914 (W.D. N.C.)

Three Years.N.C.G.S.A. § 1-52

Initial burden on insured to show good faith in failing to properly notify insurer; then burden on insurer to show prejudice once insured shows “good faith” reason for delay. Smith v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 361 S.E. 2d 571 (N.C. 1987)

Insured deemed to comply with proof of loss requirement unless insurer furnishes blank forms for proof of loss within 15 days after receipt of notice.N.C. Gen. Stat. §58-3-40

Insured’s failure to comply with proof of loss provisions does not relieve insurer of its obligation to pay under fire loss policy, if failure was for “good cause” and did not prejudice insurer’s ability to determine amount of loss. Jury to decide whether filing was good faith compliance.Smith v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 361 S.E. 2d 571 (N.C. 1987)


North Dakota No first party property cases.



Insured deemed to comply with proof of loss requirement unless insurer furnishes blank forms for proof of loss within 20 days after receipt of notice; after receiving form, insured must provide proof of loss within 60 daysN.D. Cent Code §26.1-32-08

Insurer which denied all liability on grounds policy was not in force at time of loss could not later defend on grounds formal proof of loss had not been given. Meyer v. National Fire Ins. Co., 269 N.W. 845 (N.D. 1936)









Ohio EnforcedAs long as it is reasonable.Figetakis v. Owners Ins. Co., 2006 WL 475271(Ohio App. 2006)


Compliance with policy requirement of “immediate notice” is a condition precedent to recovery. Moyer v. Merchants Fire Ins. Co., 133 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio C.P. 1952)

Compliance with policy proof of loss requirement is a condition precedent to recovery. Moyer v. Merchants Fire Ins. Co., 133 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio C.P. 1952)


Oklahoma EnforcedBut not less than 1 year (see statute).Clipperton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 151 Fed. Appx. 652 (10th Cir. 2005)

Time shall not be limited to less than one (1) year from the date of occurrence of the event resulting in the loss. 36 Okla. Stat. §3617


Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request. 36 Okla. Stat. §3629

Forms must warn insured of 60 day time requirement. 36 Okla. Stat. §4805

Proof of loss must give insurer notice on which it can act; substantial compliance required.Dixson Produce, LLC v. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 99 P.3d 725 (Okla. App. 2004)

Written offer of settlement or rejection of claim within 90 days of receipt of proof of loss. 36 Okla. Stat. §329

Oregon RestrictedBen Rybke Co. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 651 P.2d 138 (Ore. 1982)

24 months.O.R.S. § 742.240


Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request; Fire loss: Insured has 90 days after receipt of form to submit proof of loss.Ore. Rev. Stat. §742.053

Proof of loss (oral or written) is sufficient if insurer can ascertain its obligations through a reasonable subsequent investigation. Parks v. Farmers Ins. Co., 227 P.3d 1127 (Ore. 2009)

If settlement not made within 6 months from date proof of loss is filed and action is brought on insurance policy and insured’s recovery exceeds amount of tender, attorney fees shall be taxed. Ore. Rev. Stat. §742.061

Pennsylvania EnforcedPrime Medica Assocs. V. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 970 A.2d 1149 (Pa. Super. 2009)

Must not be “manifestly unreasonable”.42 Pa. C.S.A. §5501


Substantial compliance, rather than strict or literal compliance, required for effective proof of loss. Fishel v. Yorktowne Mut. Ins. Co., 385 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super 1978)









Rhode Island EnforcedDiIorio v. Abington Mut. Ins. Co., 402 A. 2d 745 (R.I. 1979)


Insurer must show prejudice caused by insured’s late notice in order to bar recovery.Siravo v. Great American Ins. Co., 410 A.2d 116 (R.I. 1980)

Substantial and reasonable compliance with policy requirements for effective proof of loss.Daniel v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co., 506 A.2d 1032 (R.I. 1986)


South Carolina Restricted Three years.Failure to comply with policy provision will not bar action if brought within requisite statute of limitations period. S.C. Code §15-3-140


Insured deemed to comply with proof of loss requirement unless insurer furnishes blank forms for proof of loss within 20 days after receipt of notice (unless a shorter time is contained in the policy).S.C. Code Ann. §38-59-10

Proof of loss must only substantially conform to the requirements of the policy. Padgett v. N. Carolina Home Ins. Co., 82 S.E. 409 (S.C. 1914)

Within 90 days after demand made by insured, absent reasonable cause, after which insurer is liable for attorneys’ fees. S.C. Code Ann. §38-59-40

South Dakota Restricted Leuning v. Dornberger Ins., Inc., 250 N.W. 2d 675 (S.D. 1977)

Two years.SDCL § 53-9-6

Notice requirement is not an “escape hatch” to allow insurer to deny coverage. Prejudice to insurer must also be shown. “Prompt notice” means notice “as soon as practicable in the particular situation.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hansen Housing, Inc., 604 N.W.2d 504 (S.D. 2000)

Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request. S.D. Codified Laws §58-12-1

Failure to strictly comply with policy provisions regarding proof of loss did not bar recovery where insurer was not prejudiced by delay and purpose for notification clause was satisfied. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hansen Housing, Inc., 604 N.W.2d 504 (S.D. 2000)









Tennessee EnforcedBrick Church Transmission, Inc. v. Southern Pilot Ins. Co., 140 S.W. 3d 324 (Tenn. App. 2003)


Failure to comply with policy time requirement is fatal to insured’s claim, absent waiver by insurer. Cox v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 297 S.W. 3d 237 (Tenn. App. 2009)

Proof of loss enabling insurer to consider its rights and liabilities substantially complies with requirements. Provisions will be liberally construed in favor of the insured. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Holt, 223 S.W.2d 203 (Tenn. App. 1949)

Within 60 days after demand has been made or subject to bad faith penalty. Tenn. Code Ann. §56-7-105

Texas Restricted Spicewood Summit Office Condominiums Ass’n, Inc. v. America First Lloyd’s Ins. Co., 287 S.W. 3d 461 (Tex. App. 2009)

Time limit cannot be less than 2 years. V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.070


Written notice sufficient if it informs the insurer the insured is claiming compensation for a loss. The Insured need not demand an exact amount. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vandiver, 970 S.W. 2d 731 (Tex. App. 1998)

Notify insured of acceptance or rejection not later than 15th business day after receipt of final proof of loss. If arson is reasonably believed to be involved, insurer must respond within 30 days of receipt of required information. If unable to accept or reject claim within periods stated above, insurer shall notify insured of the reasons and then has 45 days from date of notification. V.T.C.A., Ins. Code. §542.056

If accept, pay not later than 5th business day after notice of acceptance is made (20th day for eligible surplus lines insurer). V.T.C.A., Ins. Code §542.057








Utah Enforced But looked upon with disfavor(case predates statute). Anderson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 583 P.2d 101 (Utah 1978)

However,“no insurance policy may . . . limit the time for bringing an action to a time less than authorized by statute”. 3 year limit.Utah Code Ann. §31A-21-313

Failure to provide timely notice does not bar claim if insured shows it was not reasonably possible to do so and does give notice as soon as reasonable possible; further, insurer must show prejudice.Utah Code Ann. §31A-21-312

Failure to provide proof of loss as required under the policy does not bar claim if insured shows it was not reasonably possible to do so and does file proof of loss as soon as reasonable possible; further, insurer must show prejudice.Utah Code Ann. §31A-21-312

Proof of loss sufficient where it substantially complied with policy requirement, and gave insurer adequate opportunity to investigate, prevent fraud, and establish its rights and liabilities. First Nat’l Bank, NA v. Nat’l Am. Title Ins. Co., 749 P.2d 651 (Utah 1988)

Insurer shall timely pay every valid claim. Utah Code Ann. §31A-26-301








Vermont EnforcedSubject to statute.Greene v. Stevens Gas Service, 858 A.2d 238 (Vt. 2004)

Fire, not less than 12 months from occurrence.8 V.S.A. §3663


Proof of loss requirement waived if insurer does not provide forms within reasonable time after notice of loss.8 V.S.A. §3664

Fire loss: Policy not void for failure to file proof of loss unless insurer notifies insured in writing to provide proof of loss per policy and insured fails to do so within 30 days after notice. Omission or defect in proof is no defense unless insurer notifies insured of the defect within 10 days of receiving the proof. 8 V.S.A. §3867

If insurer fails to specify nature of defect in proof of loss, insured need not provide further proof of loss.Jervis v. Burlington Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 37 A.2d 374 (Vt. 1944)

Within 30 days after proper proof of loss provided.8 V.S.A. §3665

Virginia EnforcedSubject to statute.S. Wallace Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2003)

Not less than 1 year after loss or cause of action accrues.Va. Code Ann. §38.2-314

Fire or policy with any fire coverage2 years after inception of loss. Va. Code Ann. §38.2-2105Hitt Contracting, Inc. v. Industrial Risk insurers, 516 S.E. 2d 216 (Va. 1999)

Requirement of timely notice of accident or occurrence is condition precedent to insurer’s liability coverage requiring substantial compliance by insured. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Walton, 423 S.E.2d 188 (Va. 1992)

Insurer shall provide forms within 15 days of written request or requirement waived. Va. Code Ann. §38.2-320

Insured had burden to show information was reasonable and constituted substantial compliance with requirement that proof of loss be submitted to insurer. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Charity, 496 S.E.2d 430 (Va. 1998)

60 days after proof loss. Va. Code Ann. §38.2-2105 “Standard Provisions, conditions, stipulations and agreements for such policies.”








Washington EnforcedPolicy time limit prevails over general statue of limitation unless prohibited by statute or public policy or unreasonable. Ashburn v. Safeco Ins. Co., 713 P.2d 742 (Wash. App. 1986) explained in Schmidt v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 997 P.2d 353 (Wash 2000)

Property insurance — Not less than 1 year from date of loss.Wash. Rev. Code §48.18.200

Prejudice required for insurer to rely on insured’s failure to give timely notice.Simms v. Allstate Ins. Co., 621 P.2d 155 (Wash. App. 1980)

Insurer shall furnish forms upon request.Wash. Rev. Code §48.18.460


West Virginia EnforcedBut not less than 2 years after cause of action accrues per. W. Va. Code Ann. §33-6-14.Beasley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 184 F.S. 2d 523 (S.D. W. Va. 2002)



Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request. W. Va. Code Ann. §33-6-25

Absent bad faith, insured need only show reasonable of substantial compliance with terms of policy.Maynard v. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 129 S.E.2d 443 (W.Va. 1963) overruled on other grounds Smithson v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 411 S.E.2d 850 (W.Va. 1991)


Wisconsin Restricted No policy may shorten the time for bringing an action to shorter than the statutory period.Wis. Stat. Ann. § 631.83

Insured must demonstrate substantial performance fulfilling the purpose of the policy’s terms.Fehring v. Republic Ins. Co., 347 N.W.2d 595 (Wi. 1984) overruled on other grounds DeChant v. Monarch, 547 N.W.2d 592 (Wis. 1996)

Claim not invalidated if proof of loss and notice furnished as soon as reasonably possible and within 1 year after time required by policy, unless insurer is prejudiced and it was reasonably possible to meet time limit. Wis. Stat. §631.81









Wyoming No first party property cases.



Insurer shall furnish forms upon written request.Wyo. Stat. Ann. §26-15-126



Reporting Arson and Fraudulent Claims

It is not uncommon for a state to mandate that insurance companies report suspected fraudulent claims and all non-accidental fire losses. These jurisdictions typically require the report be made to a specific entity and many provide immunity to the insurance company when reporting a claim or loss. Some of these jurisdictions also impose negative consequences when an insurance company fails to report a claim or loss.

The “statutory consequence for failure to report” column includes both the consequences for failing to report information, as well as consequences for refusal to provide information. The particular action resulting in the consequence is noted in the chart. Negative consequences due to the failure to report, can result irrespective of the intent of the insurance company.

Please note this chart only addresses mandatory requirements set forth by a jurisdiction. It is possible there may be other non-mandatory reporting options available to an insurance company. These non-mandatory options are not addressed in this chart. Guidance is provided for the purpose of filing the required reports, including the name and address of the entity to which the report should be sent.


Reporting Arson and Fraudulent Claims Reporting Arson and Fraudulent ClaimsJurisdiction Suspected Insurance Fraud Non-Accidental Fire Loss Statutory consequence for failure

to report?Reporting Statute Immunity Provided Entity Receiving Report Reporting Statute Immunity Provided Entity Receiving Report

Alabama AL ST §27-12A-21 AL ST §27-12A-22 State of Alabama Dept of InsuranceFraud Investigation Unit201 Monroe Street, Suite 502Montgomery, AL 36130-0051

AL ST § 36-19-24 and § 36-19-42

YesAL ST § 36-19-43

State of AlabamaFire Marshal’s OfficeP.O. Box 303352Montgomery, AL 36130-3352

Arson: (refusal to provide information) Misdemeanor - Ala. Code 1975 § 36-19-44

Alaska AS §21.36.390(a) YesAS §21.36.390(c); §21.36.365

Fraud InvestigatorAlaska Division of Insurance 3601 C St., Suite 1324 Anchorage, AK 99503-5948907-269-7900

AS §21.96.050 YesAS §21.96.050

Dept of Public SafetyLife Safety Inspection BureauAnchorage Office5700 E. Tudor RoadAnchorage, AK 99507-1225

None

Arizona A.R.S. §20-466.G YesA.R.S. §20-466.K

Fraud DivisionArizona Dept of Insurance2910 W. 44th Street, Suite 210Phoenix, AZ 85018-7256602-912-8419

A.R.S. §20-1902 YesA.R.S. §20-1903

County attorney, county sheriff, attorney general, fire department, police

or

Dept of Fire, Building and Life SafetyOffice of the Fire Marshal1110 West WashingtonSuite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85007

Arson: (failure to report information) Class 2 Misdemeanor - A.R.S. §20-1906

Arkansas A.C.A. §23-66-505 YesA.C.A. 23-66-506

State of ArkansasInsurance Fraud Investigation Division1200 West Third StreetLittle Rock, AR 72201-1904501-371-2790

A.C.A. §12-13-303 YesA.C.A. §12-13-303

State of ArkansasInsurance Fraud Investigation Division1200 West Third StreetLittle Rock, AR 72201-1904

and the insured within 90 days of notification of the authorities

Fraud: (failure to report information) suspension or revocation of license and civil penalties - A.C.A. §23-66-512

Arson: (refusal to provide information) Class A Misdemeanor - A.C.A. §12-13-305

California CA INS §1872.4 (using a prescribed form)

YesCA INS §1872.5

Fraud DivisionCalifornia Dept of Insurance9342 Tech Center Dr., Suite 500Sacramento, CA 95826800-927-HELP

CA INS §1875.2 YesCA INS §1875.4


Arson: (failure to report information) Enforcement Order - Cal.Ins.Code §1875.5

Colorado C.R.S. §10-4-1003 YesC.R.S. §10-1-128 & 10-4-1005

Office of Attorney GeneralDivision of Insurance1560 Broadway, Suite 850Denver, CO 80202

C.R.S. §10-4-1003 YesC.R.S. §10-4-1005


Fraud & Arson: (failure to report information) Class 2 Misdemeanor - C.R.S. §10-4-1007




Alabama AL ST §27-12A-21 AL ST §27-12A-22 State of Alabama Dept of InsuranceFraud Investigation Unit201 Monroe Street, Suite 502Montgomery, AL 36130-0051

AL ST § 36-19-24 and § 36-19-42

YesAL ST § 36-19-43

State of AlabamaFire Marshal’s OfficeP.O. Box 303352Montgomery, AL 36130-3352

Arson: (refusal to provide information) Misdemeanor - Ala. Code 1975 § 36-19-44

Alaska AS §21.36.390(a) YesAS §21.36.390(c); §21.36.365

Fraud InvestigatorAlaska Division of Insurance 3601 C St., Suite 1324 Anchorage, AK 99503-5948907-269-7900

AS §21.96.050 YesAS §21.96.050

Dept of Public SafetyLife Safety Inspection BureauAnchorage Office5700 E. Tudor RoadAnchorage, AK 99507-1225

None

Arizona A.R.S. §20-466.G YesA.R.S. §20-466.K

Fraud DivisionArizona Dept of Insurance2910 W. 44th Street, Suite 210Phoenix, AZ 85018-7256602-912-8419

A.R.S. §20-1902 YesA.R.S. §20-1903

County attorney, county sheriff, attorney general, fire department, police

or

Dept of Fire, Building and Life SafetyOffice of the Fire Marshal1110 West WashingtonSuite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85007

Arson: (failure to report information) Class 2 Misdemeanor - A.R.S. §20-1906

Arkansas A.C.A. §23-66-505 YesA.C.A. 23-66-506

State of ArkansasInsurance Fraud Investigation Division1200 West Third StreetLittle Rock, AR 72201-1904501-371-2790

A.C.A. §12-13-303 YesA.C.A. §12-13-303

State of ArkansasInsurance Fraud Investigation Division1200 West Third StreetLittle Rock, AR 72201-1904

and the insured within 90 days of notification of the authorities

Fraud: (failure to report information) suspension or revocation of license and civil penalties - A.C.A. §23-66-512

Arson: (refusal to provide information) Class A Misdemeanor - A.C.A. §12-13-305

California CA INS §1872.4 (using a prescribed form)

YesCA INS §1872.5


CA INS §1875.2 YesCA INS §1875.4


Arson: (failure to report information) Enforcement Order - Cal.Ins.Code §1875.5

Colorado C.R.S. §10-4-1003 YesC.R.S. §10-1-128 & 10-4-1005


C.R.S. §10-4-1003 YesC.R.S. §10-4-1005


Fraud & Arson: (failure to report information) Class 2 Misdemeanor - C.R.S. §10-4-1007




Connecticut None (reporting encouraged, but not mandatory)

None N/A(Connecticut Insurance DeptInsurance Fraud & Investigations UnitP.O. Box 816Hartford, CT 06142-0816800-203-3447)

C.G.S.A. § 38a-318 YesC.G.S.A. § 38a-318

Office of State Fire Marshal1111 Country Club RoadMiddletown, CT 06457860-685-8380

or

Connecticut Insurance Dept.Insurance Fraud UnitP.O. Box 816Hartford, CT 06142-0816860-297-3933800-203-3447

None

Delaware 18 Del.C. §2408 Yes18 Del.C. §2409

Director-Fraud Prevention BureauDelaware Dept of Insurance841 Silver Lake Blvd.Dover, DE 19904800-632-5154

16 Del.C. § 6811 (loss must be in excess of $5,000)

Yes16 Del.C. § 6811

Delaware State Fire Marshal’s Office1537 Chestnut Grove RoadDover, DE 19904302-739-4394

Arson: (refusal to provide information) no penalty defined - 16 Del.C. §6813


DC ST §22-3225.08 YesDC ST §22-3225.13

Metropolitan Police Dept300 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001

Fraud BureauDept of Insurance and Securities Regulation810 First Street, N.E., Suite 701Washington, DC 20002202-727-8000

DC ST § 5-417 YesDC ST § 5-417

Office of the Fire Marshal441 4th Street N.W., Suite 370Washington, D.C. 20001202-727-1600

Arson: (failure to report information) Fine - DC ST § 5-417

Florida FL ST §626.989 YesFL ST . §626.989(4) (c) & (d)

Dept of Financial ServicesDivision of Insurance Fraud200 East Gaines StreetTallahassee, FL 32340800-378-0445

FL ST §633.126 YesFL ST §633.126

Dept of Financial ServicesDivision of State Fire MarshalBureau of Fire & Arson Investigations200 East Gaines StreetTallahassee, FL 32340850-413-3170

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor of the first degree - Fla. Stat. § 633.175(9)

Georgia O.C.G.A. § 33-1-16 YesO.C.G.A. § 33-1-16

Chief of InvestigationsDept of InsuranceTwo Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. 708 West Tower/ EnforcementAtlanta, GA 30334404-656-2070800-726-6070

O.C.G.A. § 33-1-16 YesO.C.G.A. § 33-1-16

Georgia Arson Control Program, Inc.Post Office Box 956158Duluth, GA 30095-9503404-657-9831800-282-5804

or

Office of Insurance & Safety Fire CommissionerTwo Martin Luther King, Jr. DrWest Tower, Suite 708Atlanta, GA 30334 404-656-2060

None




Hawaii HRS §431:2-409 HRS §431:2-408 Hawaii Insurance DivisionInsurance Fraud Investigation Branch335 Merchant Street, 2nd FloorHonolulu, HI 96813808-586-2790

HRS § 132-4.5 YesHRS § 132-4.5

Local county fire chief None

Idaho IC §41-290 (within 60 days)

YesIC §41-292

Fraud UnitDept of Insurance700 W. State StreetBoise, ID 83720-0043208-334-4250

IC §41-258 and §41-292

YesIC §41-292

State Fire MarshalDept. of Insurance700 W. State St.Boise, ID 83720208-334-4370

Fraud: (Administrative Penalty- failure to report information) Fines and penalties - Idaho Code §§41-290 and 41-327

Illinois None (encouraged, but not mandatory)

Yes215 ILCS 5/401.5 (when insurer provides information requested by the Director of Insurance)

N/A (Illinois Department of Financial & Professional RegulationDivision of Insurance 320 W. Washington StreetSpringfield, IL 62767312-814-5394)

215 ILCS 145/1 Yes215 ILCS 145/1

Law enforcement,Illinois Dept of Financial & Professional RegulationDivision of Insurance320 W. Washington StreetSpringfield, IL 62767-0001217-782-4515

or

Office of the State Fire MarshalArson Investigation Division1035 Stevenson DriveSpringfield, IL 62703800-252-2947

Arson: (failure to report information) Class C Misdemeanor - 215 ILCS 145/1 and fine imposed)

Indiana None(encouraged, but not mandatory)

YesIC 27-1-3-22

N/AIndiana Dept of Insurance311 W. Washington StreetSuite 300Indianapolis, IN 46207-2787800-835-6422)

IC 27-2-13-3 YesIC 27-2-13-4

Attorney general, district attorney, superintendent of the state police

or

State Fire MarshalDept of Fire & Bldg. Srvcs.402 W. Washington St.,Rm. C246Indianapolis, IN 46204(317) 232-2226

None

Iowa I.C.A. §507E.6 (within 60 days)

YesI.C.A. §507E.7

Insurance Fraud BureauIowa Dept of InsuranceLucas State Office Building 330 S. Maple St.Des Moines, IA 50319515-242-5304

I.C.A. §100A.2 YesI.C.A. §100A.2

County attorney, attorney general, FBI, United States attorney, fire chief, police, sheriff

or

Iowa Dept of Public SafetyIowa State Fire Marshal Division215 East 7th Street Des Moines, IA 50319 515-725-61451-800-532-1459

Arson: (refusal to provide information) Misdemeanor - I.C.A. §100A.4




Kansas K.S.A. §40-2,118a YesK.S.A. §40-2,119

Kansas Insurance Dept 420 SW 9th StreetTopeka, KS 66612-16781-800-432-2484785-296-3918

K.S.A. §31-403 YesK.S.A. §31-403

Attorney general, county attorney, law enforcement, official fire fighting agencies, FBI, United States attorney

or

Kansas State Fire Marshal’s Office700 SW Jackson St, Suite 600Topeka, KS 66603785-296-3401

Arson: (failure to report information) Class C Misdemeanor - KS ST §31-406

Kentucky KRS §304.47-050 YesKRS§304.47-050

Insurance Fraud Investigation Division Dept of Insurance909 Leawood DriveP. O. Box 4050Frankfort, KY 40604-4050800-595-6053

KRS § 227.250 and § 304-20-160

Yes Insurance Fraud Investigation Division Dept of Insurance909 Leawood DriveP. O. Box 4050Frankfort, KY 40604-4050800-272-7766

None

Louisiana LSA RS 22:1926 (within 60 days)

YesLSA RS 22:1928

Fraud SectionLouisiana Dept of InsuranceP.O. Box 3096Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3096225-342-4956

LSA RS 40:1568.2 YesLSA RS 40:1568.2

Local authorities

or

Louisiana State Fire Marshal’s Office8181 Independence Blvd.Baton Rouge, LA 70806225-925-4205

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - LSA - R. S. 40:1591

Maine 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2186 (annual report of known, not suspected, fraud)

Yes24-A M.R.S.A. § 2187 (includes suspected fraud)

Dept of Professional & Financial RegulationBureau of Insurance#34 State House StationAugusta, ME 04333-0034207-624-8475

25 M.R.S.A. § 2412 Yes25 M.R.S.A. § 2412

Maine Office of State Fire Marshal52 State House StationAugusta, ME 04333-0052207-626-3870

None

Maryland MD Insurance § 27-802

YesMD Insurance § 27-802

Insurance Fraud DivisionMaryland Insurance Administration201 E. Baltimore St., Suite 700Baltimore, MD 21202800-846-4069

MD Public Safety §§ 9-602 and 603

YesMD Cts & Jud Pro § 5-409 and MD Public Safety § 9-605

Maryland State Fire Marshal’s Office 1201 Reisterstown Rd. Pikesville, MD 21208 800-492-7529

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - MD Public Safety § 9-606

Massachusetts §13 of 427 Mass Acts 1996

Yes§13 of 427 Mass Acts 1996

Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts101 Arch StreetBoston, MA 02110800-32FRAUD

M.G.L.A. 148 § 32 YesM.G.L.A. 148 § 32

Dept of Fire ServicesFire and Explosion Investigation SectionP.O. Box 1025 State Road Stow, MA 01775978-567-3100

Arson: (failure to report information) Fine - M.G.L.A. 148 § 34




Michigan M.C.L.A. 500.4507 YesM.C.L.A. 500.4509

Local authorities

Dept of Labor & Economic GrowthFinancial and Insurance ServicesP.O. Box 30220Lansing, MI 48909 517-373-0220

M.C.L.A. 29.4 YesM.C.L.A. 29.4

Michigan Dept of Labor & Economic GrowthBureau of Fire ServicesOffice of State Fire MarshalP.O. Box 30700Lansing, MI 48909

Michigan State Police Fire Training Unit Bldg C 714 S. Harrison Road East Lansing, MI 48823 517-333-4587800-44-ARSON

None

Minnesota M.S.A. §60A.952 YesM.S.A. §60A.952

Director of EnforcementDept of Commerce85 7th Place EastSuite 500St. Paul, MN 55101888-372-8366

M.S.A. §299F.054 YesM.S.A. §299F.054

Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division444 Cedar St., Suite 145St. Paul, MN 55101-5145651-201-7200800-723-2020

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - M.S.A. 299F.056

Mississippi None None N/A MS ST § 83-13-21 (state fire marshal or commissioner of insurance may require release of information)

YesMS ST § 83-13-21

Mississippi Insurance DeptState Fire Marshal’s OfficeP.O. Box 79Jackson, MS 39205888-648-0877

Arson: (refusal to provide information) Fine and license revocation - MS ST § 83-13-21

Missouri V.A.M.S. §375.992 YesV.A.M.S. §375.993.2

Dept of InsuranceP.O. Box 690Jefferson City, MO 65102-0690573-751-2640

V.A.M.S. §320.082 YesV.A.M.S. § 320.085

County attorney None

Montana MT ST §33-1-1205 (within 60 days)

YesMT ST §33-1-1210

Fraud CoordinatorState Compensation Insurance FraudP.O. Box 4795Helena, MT 596041-800-332-6148

Montana State Auditor’s Office840 Helena AvenueHelena, MT 59601800-332-6148

MT ST §50-63-402 YesMT ST §50-63-405

Fire Prevention & Investigation SectionDivision of Criminal InvestigationDepartment of Justice2225 11th AvenueP.O. Box 201415Helena, MT 59620-1415406-444-2050

None

Nebraska Neb.Rev.Stat. §44-393 YesNeb.Rev.Stat. §44-6605

Fraud Prevention Division Nebraska Dept of Insurance941 O Street Suite 400Lincoln, NE 68508-3639402-471-4999

Neb.Rev.Stat. §81-5,123 YesNeb.Rev.Stat. §81-5,126

State Fire Marshal’s Office246 South 14th StreetLincoln, NE 68508-1804402-471-2027 888-WY-ARSON

Arson: (failure to report information) Class IV Misdemeanor - Neb.Rev.Stat. §81-5,129 and §81-5,131




Nevada NRS §686A.283 YesNRS §679B.670

Office of the Attorney General555 E. Washington AvenueSuite 3900Reno, NV 89101800-266-8688

NRS §686A.285 and §379B.153

YesNRS §679B.670

Office of the State Fire MarshalFire Investigations / Enforcement107 Jacobsen Way Carson City, NV 89711775-684-7500


Fraud and Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - NRS §679A.180

New Hampshire NH Rev Stat §417:28 (via prescribed form)

YesNH Rev Stat §417.28

New Hampshire Insurance DepartmentFraud Investigation Unit21 South Fruit StreetSuite 14Concord, NH 03301603-271-1406

NH Rev Stat §153.13-a (in excess of $1,000)

YesNH Rev Stat §153.13-a

Bureau of InvestigationsNew Hampshire Dept of Safety33 Hazen DriveConcord, NH 03305800-400-3526

None

New Jersey N.J.S.A. §17:33A-9 YesN.J.S.A. §17:33A-9

Office of the Attorney General 25 Market Street, CN 080Trenton, NJ 08625877-55-FRAUD

N.J.S.A. §17:36-16 YesN.J.S.A. §17:36-17

County prosecutor Arson: (failure to report information) Fine – N.J.S.A. §17:36-21

New Mexico NM Stat. Ann. §59A-16C-6

YesNM Stat. Ann. §59A-16C-7

Insurance Fraud BureauP.O. Box 1269Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269877-807-4010

NM Stat. Ann. § 41-8-3 YesNM Stat. Ann. § 41-8-3

Local authorities

New Mexico Fire Marshal’s Office Bokum Building (2nd Floor)142 West Palace AveP.O. Box 1269Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269800-244-6702

None

New York NY INS §405 (within 30 days)

YesNY INS Law §405

Insurance Frauds Bureau25 Beaver StreetNew York, NY 10004888-FRAUDNY

NY INS §§318 & 319 YesNY INS §405

Local authorities


None

North Carolina NC ST §58-2-163 YesNC ST §58-2-163

NC Dept of Insurance Investigations DivisionMSC 1201 Raleigh, NC 27699-1201919-807-6840

NC ST. §58-79-40(b) YesNC ST. §58-79-40 (c)

NC State Bureau of Investigation919-662-4500

Fraud: (failure to report information) revoke license -N.C.G.S. §58-2-163

North Dakota ND ST § 26.1-02.1-06 YesND ST § 26.1-02.1-04.

North Dakota Dept of Insurance600 East Boulevard AvenueState Capital, Fifth FloorBismarck, ND 58505701-328-2440

ND ST § 18-01-05.1 (all fire losses)

YesND ST § 18-01-05.1

Regional Fire Marshal Office701-328-5555

Regional map with contact info:www.ag.state.nd.us/FM/Regions.htm

None




Nevada NRS §686A.283 YesNRS §679B.670


NRS §686A.285 and §379B.153

YesNRS §679B.670

Office of the State Fire MarshalFire Investigations / Enforcement107 Jacobsen Way Carson City, NV 89711775-684-7500


Fraud and Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - NRS §679A.180

New Hampshire NH Rev Stat §417:28 (via prescribed form)

YesNH Rev Stat §417.28

New Hampshire Insurance DepartmentFraud Investigation Unit21 South Fruit StreetSuite 14Concord, NH 03301603-271-1406

NH Rev Stat §153.13-a (in excess of $1,000)

YesNH Rev Stat §153.13-a

Bureau of InvestigationsNew Hampshire Dept of Safety33 Hazen DriveConcord, NH 03305800-400-3526

None

New Jersey N.J.S.A. §17:33A-9 YesN.J.S.A. §17:33A-9

Office of the Attorney General 25 Market Street, CN 080Trenton, NJ 08625877-55-FRAUD

N.J.S.A. §17:36-16 YesN.J.S.A. §17:36-17

County prosecutor Arson: (failure to report information) Fine – N.J.S.A. §17:36-21

New Mexico NM Stat. Ann. §59A-16C-6

YesNM Stat. Ann. §59A-16C-7

Insurance Fraud BureauP.O. Box 1269Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269877-807-4010

NM Stat. Ann. § 41-8-3 YesNM Stat. Ann. § 41-8-3

Local authorities

New Mexico Fire Marshal’s Office Bokum Building (2nd Floor)142 West Palace AveP.O. Box 1269Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269800-244-6702

None

New York NY INS §405 (within 30 days)

YesNY INS Law §405


NY INS §§318 & 319 YesNY INS §405

Local authorities


None

North Carolina NC ST §58-2-163 YesNC ST §58-2-163

NC Dept of Insurance Investigations DivisionMSC 1201 Raleigh, NC 27699-1201919-807-6840

NC ST. §58-79-40(b) YesNC ST. §58-79-40 (c)

NC State Bureau of Investigation919-662-4500

Fraud: (failure to report information) revoke license -N.C.G.S. §58-2-163

North Dakota ND ST § 26.1-02.1-06 YesND ST § 26.1-02.1-04.

North Dakota Dept of Insurance600 East Boulevard AvenueState Capital, Fifth FloorBismarck, ND 58505701-328-2440

ND ST § 18-01-05.1 (all fire losses)

YesND ST § 18-01-05.1

Regional Fire Marshal Office701-328-5555

Regional map with contact info:www.ag.state.nd.us/FM/Regions.htm

None




Ohio R.C. §3999.42 YesR.C. §3999.31

Fraud DivisionDept of Insurance2100 Stella CourtColumbus, OH 43215-1067800-686-1527

R.C. §3737.16 R.C. §3737.16 The Ohio Dept of CommerceDivision of State Fire MarshalFire & Explosion Investigation Bureau8895 East Main StreetReynoldsburg, OH 43068800-589-2728

Arson: (failure to report information) No penalty defined - R.C. §3737.16

Oklahoma 36 Okla. Stat. Ann. §363

Yes36 Okla. Stat. Ann. § §36-363

Anti-Fraud UnitOklahoma Insurance DeptP.O. Box 53408Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3408800-522-0071

36 Okla. Stat. Ann. §6301 through §6306

Yes36 Okla. Stat. Ann. §6304

Local authorities

Office of the Oklahoma State Fire Marshal2401 NW 23rd, Suite 4Oklahoma City, OK 73107800-522-8666

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - 36 Okla. Stat. Ann. §6306

Oregon O.R.S. §731.592 YesO.R.S. §731.594

Local authorities O.R.S. §476.270 and 476.090

YesO.R.S. §476.270

Oregon Council Against Arsonc/o Oregon Chapter 31 IAAIP.O. Box 15118Salme, OR 97301503-934-0243

Oregon State Police Arson Section4th Floor255 Capitol St NESalem, OR 97310

Fraud: (failure to report information) Forfeiture of eligibility to compensation that may exist from award - O.R.S. §731.592

Pennsylvania 40 P.S. §325.44 Yes18 Pa.C.S.A. §4117 and 40 P.S. §325.47 (for permissive reporting)

Insurance Fraud SectionOffice of Attorney General16th Floor, Strawberry SquareHarrisburg, PA 17120717-787-0272

Insurance Fraud Prevention Authority4720 Carlisle Pike, Suite 205Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3023888-565-4372

(Required reporting only if requested: permissive reporting allowed.)

40 P.S. § 1610.3 Yes40 P.S. § 1610.4


and

to the insured, no sooner than 45 days or later than 60 days after reporting to the authorities

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor of the third degree - 40 P.S. § 1610.6

Rhode Island RI ST 27-54.1-5 None Division of Insurance Fraud Reporting1511 Pontiac AvenueCranston, RI 02920401-462-9500

RI ST § 27-8.1-3 YesRI ST § 27-8.1-3

Local authorities

and

Rhode Island Office of the State Fire Marshal118 Parade Street Providence, RI 02909401-295-9083

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - RI ST § 27-8.1-5




Ohio R.C. §3999.42 YesR.C. §3999.31

Fraud DivisionDept of Insurance2100 Stella CourtColumbus, OH 43215-1067800-686-1527

R.C. §3737.16 R.C. §3737.16 The Ohio Dept of CommerceDivision of State Fire MarshalFire & Explosion Investigation Bureau8895 East Main StreetReynoldsburg, OH 43068800-589-2728

Arson: (failure to report information) No penalty defined - R.C. §3737.16

Oklahoma 36 Okla. Stat. Ann. §363

Yes36 Okla. Stat. Ann. § §36-363

Anti-Fraud UnitOklahoma Insurance DeptP.O. Box 53408Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3408800-522-0071

36 Okla. Stat. Ann. §6301 through §6306

Yes36 Okla. Stat. Ann. §6304

Local authorities

Office of the Oklahoma State Fire Marshal2401 NW 23rd, Suite 4Oklahoma City, OK 73107800-522-8666

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - 36 Okla. Stat. Ann. §6306

Oregon O.R.S. §731.592 YesO.R.S. §731.594

Local authorities O.R.S. §476.270 and 476.090

YesO.R.S. §476.270

Oregon Council Against Arsonc/o Oregon Chapter 31 IAAIP.O. Box 15118Salme, OR 97301503-934-0243

Oregon State Police Arson Section4th Floor255 Capitol St NESalem, OR 97310

Fraud: (failure to report information) Forfeiture of eligibility to compensation that may exist from award - O.R.S. §731.592

Pennsylvania 40 P.S. §325.44 Yes18 Pa.C.S.A. §4117 and 40 P.S. §325.47 (for permissive reporting)


Insurance Fraud Prevention Authority4720 Carlisle Pike, Suite 205Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3023888-565-4372

(Required reporting only if requested: permissive reporting allowed.)

40 P.S. § 1610.3 Yes40 P.S. § 1610.4


and

to the insured, no sooner than 45 days or later than 60 days after reporting to the authorities

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor of the third degree - 40 P.S. § 1610.6

Rhode Island RI ST 27-54.1-5 None Division of Insurance Fraud Reporting1511 Pontiac AvenueCranston, RI 02920401-462-9500

RI ST § 27-8.1-3 YesRI ST § 27-8.1-3

Local authorities

and

Rhode Island Office of the State Fire Marshal118 Parade Street Providence, RI 02909401-295-9083

Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - RI ST § 27-8.1-5




South Carolina SC ST § 38-55-570 YesSC ST § 38-55-580

Office of Attorney GeneralInsurance Fraud Division P.O. Box 11549Columbia, SC 29211888-95-FRAUD

South Carolina Dept of InsuranceP.O. Box 100105Columbia, SC 29202803-737-6160

SC ST § 23-41-30 (required when claim is denied for arson or fraud. Notice permitted with immunity when arson suspected.)

YesSC ST § 23-41-30

Office of Attorney GeneralInsurance Fraud DivisionP.O. Box 11549Columbia, SC 29211888-95-FRAUD


Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - SC ST § 23-41-60

South Dakota None (encouraged, but not mandatory)

YesSD ST §58-4A-13

Insurance Fraud Prevention Unit445 E. Capital AvenuePierre, SD 57501605-773-6325

SD ST §34-32A-2 YesSD ST §58-4A-13; §34-32A-7

An Authorized Agency None

Tennessee TN ST § 56-53-109 YesTN ST § 56-53-110

State of Tennessee - Department of Commerce and InsuranceInsurance Division » Fraud Investigation Section500 James Robertson PkwyFourth FloorNashville, TN 37243

or other law enforcement agencies

TN ST § 68-102-115 YesTN ST § 68-102-115

State of Tennessee - Dept. of Commerce and InsuranceDivision of Fire Prevention » Bomb and Arson Section1210 Foster Avenue Nashville, TN 37210615-741-3030800-762-3017


None

Texas TX INS §701.051 (no later than 30 days after fraud has been suspected or reasonably determined)

YesTX INS §701.052

State of Texas - Fraud UnitP.O. Box 149104Austin, TX 78714-9104888-327-8818

TX INS § 2001.006 (if insurer suspects fire is caused by incendiary means and a request for information is made)

YesTX INS § 2001.006


None

Utah UT ST §31A-31-110 YesUT ST §31A-31-105

Insurance Dept UT ST §53-7-214 YesUT ST §53-7-214

Local fire chiefandDept of Public SafetyState Fire Marshal5272 South College Dr. Suite 302Murray, UT 84123801-284-6350

Civil penalties (for failure to report fraud)- Utah Code §31A-31-109

Vermont None Yes13 V.S.A. § 2031

Local authorities 8 V.S.A. § 3671 Yes8 V.S.A. § 3672

Dept of Public SafetyDivision of Fire Safety1311 U.S. Route 302 - BerlinSuite 600Barre, VT 05641-2351800-322-7766

Arson: (failure to report information) Suspension of license - 8 V.S.A. § 3673




South Carolina SC ST § 38-55-570 YesSC ST § 38-55-580

Office of Attorney GeneralInsurance Fraud Division P.O. Box 11549Columbia, SC 29211888-95-FRAUD


SC ST § 23-41-30 (required when claim is denied for arson or fraud. Notice permitted with immunity when arson suspected.)

YesSC ST § 23-41-30

Office of Attorney GeneralInsurance Fraud DivisionP.O. Box 11549Columbia, SC 29211888-95-FRAUD


Arson: (failure to report information) Misdemeanor - SC ST § 23-41-60

South Dakota None (encouraged, but not mandatory)

YesSD ST §58-4A-13

Insurance Fraud Prevention Unit445 E. Capital AvenuePierre, SD 57501605-773-6325

SD ST §34-32A-2 YesSD ST §58-4A-13; §34-32A-7

An Authorized Agency None

Tennessee TN ST § 56-53-109 YesTN ST § 56-53-110

State of Tennessee - Department of Commerce and InsuranceInsurance Division » Fraud Investigation Section500 James Robertson PkwyFourth FloorNashville, TN 37243


TN ST § 68-102-115 YesTN ST § 68-102-115

State of Tennessee - Dept. of Commerce and InsuranceDivision of Fire Prevention » Bomb and Arson Section1210 Foster Avenue Nashville, TN 37210615-741-3030800-762-3017


None

Texas TX INS §701.051 (no later than 30 days after fraud has been suspected or reasonably determined)

YesTX INS §701.052


TX INS § 2001.006 (if insurer suspects fire is caused by incendiary means and a request for information is made)

YesTX INS § 2001.006


None

Utah UT ST §31A-31-110 YesUT ST §31A-31-105

Insurance Dept UT ST §53-7-214 YesUT ST §53-7-214

Local fire chiefandDept of Public SafetyState Fire Marshal5272 South College Dr. Suite 302Murray, UT 84123801-284-6350

Civil penalties (for failure to report fraud)- Utah Code §31A-31-109

Vermont None Yes13 V.S.A. § 2031

Local authorities 8 V.S.A. § 3671 Yes8 V.S.A. § 3672

Dept of Public SafetyDivision of Fire Safety1311 U.S. Route 302 - BerlinSuite 600Barre, VT 05641-2351800-322-7766

Arson: (failure to report information) Suspension of license - 8 V.S.A. § 3673




Virginia VA ST §52-40 VA ST §52-41 Insurance Fraud ProgramVirginia State PoliceP.O. Box 27472Richmond, VA 23261-7472877-623-7283

VA ST §27-85.5 VA ST §27-85.5 Insurance Fraud ProgramVirginia State PoliceP.O. Box 27472Richmond, VA 23261-7472877-623-7283

None

Washington RCW 48.135.050 YesRCW §48.50.070

Office of the Insurance CommissionerSpecial Investigations UnitP.O. Box 40261Olympia, WA 98504-0261800-562-6900360-586-2566

RCW §48.50.040 YesRCW §48.50.070

Washington State PatrolOffice of the State Fire MarshalP.O. Box 42600Olympia WA 98504-2600360-753-0400

None

West Virginia W.Va. Code §33-41-5 YesW.Va. Code §33-41-6

WV Insurance Commission Fraud UnitGreenlee Building, Ste. 300Smith StreetCharleston, WV 25301800-642-9004

W.Va. Code §33-41-5 (if the company believes a crime of fraud is being perpetrated)

YesW.Va. Code §33-41-6

WV State Fire MarshalFire Investigation Division1207 Quarrier St., (2nd Flr.)Charleston, WV 25301 800-233-FIRE304-558-2191

None

Wisconsin None YesW.S.A. § 895.486 (for permissive reporting)

Local authorities(required reporting only if requested. Permissive reporting allowed)

W.S.A. §165.55 YesW.S.A. § 895.486

Wisconsin Dept. of JusticeArson Bureau/State Fire Marshal’s Office P.O. Box 7857Madison, WI 53707-7857608-266-167800-362-3005

None

Wyoming None (encouraged, but not mandatory)

YesWY ST §26-2-131

Wyoming Insurance DeptFraud Division106 E. 6th AvenueCheyenne, WY 82002307-777-7401

WY ST §6-3-109 YesWY ST §6-3-109

State Fire Marshal’s OfficeFire InvestigationHerschler 1 WestCheyenne, WY 82002307-777-7288

None


Valuation

Where the terms of a policy of property insurance allow for the recovery of the actual cash value of the property but do not define the term, courts apply a variety of tests to ascertain what constitutes actual cash value. If the property is one for which market value can be determined, the courts often use the market value to evaluate the actual cash value of the property. Some jurisdictions, however, look to the replacement cost, reproduction cost, or the repair cost to assess the actual cash value. Other courts are willing to consider any evidence logically tending to establish a correct estimate of the actual cash value of the insured property at the time of the loss. This standard is known as the Broad Evidence Rule. The tests applied by the jurisdictions, if any, are identified in the following materials.

A newly trending issue is regarding the appropriate calculation of actual cash value. Specifically, some jurisdictions have examined whether an insurance carrier may withhold or depreciate overhead and profit or labor costs from an actual cash value payment. Any jurisdictions that have addressed this issue are referenced in this column.

Various issues arise when a policy of property insurance allows for the recovery of replacement cost value. For example, claims have been submitted for the increased cost of construction to meet current building codes, as part of the replacement cost claim, irrespective of separate coverage for this cost or when coverage is not afforded for this exposure. The rulings of the jurisdictions regarding the insurer’s liability for the increased costs as part of replacement cost, where available, are presented in the chart that follows.

Another issue that may arise is whether the replacement property must be at the same location as the insured property. Although most courts that have addressed the issue have held the property need not be rebuilt at the same location, others have held to the contrary. These holdings are identified in the following chart.


ValuationJurisdiction Actual Cash Value Replacement Cost Value

Definition(When Not Defined in Policy)

O&P deducted from ACV Payment?

Insurer Liable for Increased Cost Due to Ordinance / Code?

Same Location of Replacement Property Required?

Alabama Fair Market Value

Sussex Fire Ins. Co. v. Barton, 144 So. 439 (Ala. 1932)

No first party property cases


Noabsent specific policy requirement

Huggins v. Hanover Ins. Co., 423 So. 2d 147 (Ala. 1982)

Alaska No first party property cases


Yes

Bering Strait School Dist. v. RLI Ins. Co., 873 P.2d 1292 (Alaska 1994)


Arizona No first party property cases




Arkansas No first party property cases

Labor-only costs cannot be depreciated when determining the actual cash value of a covered loss under an insurance policy that does not define ACV.

Adams v. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 Ark. 475 (Ark. 2013)



California Fair Market Value

Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 475 P. 2d 880 (Cal. 1970)

Fire Policy - total loss:Fair Market Value

Cal. Ins. Code §2051

Fire Policy - partial loss:Repair/Replacement CostLess Depreciation or Policy Limit(whichever is less)

Cal. Ins. Code §2051


No

McCorkle v. State Farm Ins. Co., 270 Cal. Rptr. 492 (Cal. App. 1990)

Yes

Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Ct., 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 617 (Cal. App. 2004) (pursuant to replacement cost provisions of the policy)

No

Conway v. Farmers Home Mut. Ins. Co., 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 883 (Cal. App. 1994)

Colorado Broad Evidence Rule

Nebraska Drillers v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 123 F.S. 678 (D. Colo. 1954)


Yes

Dupre v. Allstate Ins. Co., 62 P.3d 1024 (Colo. App. 2002) (for areas damaged)








Connecticut Broad Evidence Rule

Castoldi v. Hartford County Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 154 A.2d 247 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1959)


No(exclusions upheld)Celebrate Windsor, Inc. v. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1169816 (D. Conn.)

No

S and S Tobacco and Candy Co. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 617 A.2d 1388 (Conn. 1992)

Delaware Fair Market Value

Metropolitan Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Carmen Holding Co., 220 A.2d 778 (Del. 1966)




Florida Broad Evidence Rule

Worcester Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Eisenberg,147 So. 2d 575 (Fla. App. 1962)

ACV payment should include O&P on the ACV amount but not the RCV amount

Goff v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 999 So.2d 684 (2008)

No

State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 639 So.2d 63 (Fla. App. 1994)

No

Davis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 781 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. App. 2001)

Georgia Fair Market Value

American Cas. Co. v. Parks-Chambers, Inc., 142 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. App. 1965)




Hawaii No first party property cases




Idaho Broad Evidence Rule

Manduca Datson, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 676 P.2d 1274 (Idaho App. 1984)


Yes

Garnett v. Transamerica Ins. Services, 800 P.2d 656 (Idaho 1990)


Illinois Replacement Cost Less Depreciation

Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 511 F.2d 241 (7th Cir. 1975)


Yes(exclusion will be enforced)

Cohen Furn. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 573 N.E.2d 851 (Ill. App. 1991)


Indiana Broad Evidence Rule

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Armstrong, 442 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1982)


No

Nahmias Realty, Inc. v. Cohen, 484 N.E.2d 617 (Ind. App. 1985) (standard policy exclusion could have been waived)








Iowa Broad Evidence Rule

Britven v. Occidental Ins. Co., 13 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1944)



No

Conrad Bros. v. John Deere Ins. Co., 2001 WL 490390 (Iowa Ct.App.)

Kansas Homeowners Policy - partial loss: Repair/Replacement Cost without depreciation deduction (depreciation allowed if provided for in policy)

Thomas v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 666 P.2d 676 (Kan. 1983)


Yes

Unified School Dist. No. 285 v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 627 P.2d 1147 (Kan. App. 1981)

Overruled on other grounds Thomas v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 666 P.2d 676 (Kan. 1983)


Kentucky Broad Evidence Rule

American States Ins. Co. v. Mo-Lex, Inc., 427 S.W. 2d 236 (Ky. App. 1968)

Subtraction of non-damage factors which are applicable only in the instance of repair or replacement such as clean up, profit, overhead, and permits, were properly deducted.

Snellen v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 675 F.Supp. 1064 (1987)



Louisiana Replacement CostLess Depreciation

Rayabco Holdings, LLC v. Markel Internat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2287833 (E.D. La.)


No

(exclusion enforced)Prytania Park Hotel v. General Star Indem. Co., 896 F.S. 618 (E.D. La. 1995)


Maine Fair Market Value

Forer v. Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 295 A.2d 247 (Me. 1972)


No

Bradford v. Home Ins. Co., 384 A.2d 52 (Me. 1978)

No

Blanchette v. York Mut. Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 426 (Me. 1983)

But see, Boudreau v. Manufacturers and Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 588 A.2d 286 (Me. 1991)

Maryland Broad Evidence Rule

Schreiber v. Pacific Coast Fire Ins. Co., 75 A.2d 108 (Md. 1950)










Massachusetts Broad Evidence Rule

Agoos Leather Cos. v. American & Foreign Ins. Co., 174 N.E.2d 652 (Mass. 1961)


Yes Hewins v. London Assurance Corp., 68 N.E. 62 (Mass. 1903) (no policy exclusion present or construed)

No

Russo v. Hingham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2001 WL 113992 (Mass. App.)

Michigan Broad Evidence Rule

Evanston Ins. Co. v. Cogswell Properties, LLC, 2010 WL 3037786 (W.D. Mich.)

Overhead and profit in payment of ACV cannot be deducted

Salesin v. State Farm Fire & Cas., 581 N.W.2d 781 (1998)


No

Price v. High Pointe Oil Co., Inc. 828 N.W.2d 660 (Mich. 2013)

Minnesota Broad Evidence Rule

Brooks Realty, Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co.,149 N.W.2d 494 (Minn. 1967)




Mississippi ACV Equivalent to RC

Lititz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buckley, 261 So. 2d 492 (Miss 1972)




Missouri Fair Market Value

Harris v. American Home Ins. Co., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2008)




Montana Broad Evidence Rule Implied

Lee v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 266 P. 640 (Mont. 1928)But see, MCA 33-24-101 (absent a valuation contained in the policy, indemnity is the expense of repairing or replacing)


Yes

Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Oakland, 825 P.2d 554 (Mont. 1992)


Nebraska Fair Market Value

Grantham v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 119 N.W.2d 519 (Neb. 1963)




Nevada No first party property cases




New Hampshire

Broad Evidence Rule

Pinet v. N.H. Fire Ins. Co., 126 A.2d 262 (N.H. 1956)










New Jersey Broad Evidence Rule

Messing v. Reliance Ins. Co., 187 A.2d 49 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1962)


Yes

DEB Assocs. v. Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co., 970 A. 2d 1074 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)


New Mexico Fair Market Value

Roswell Trailers, Inc. v. Potomac Ins. Co., 576 P.2d 1133 (N.M. 1978)




New York Broad Evidence Rule

McAnarney v. Newark Fire Ins. Co., 159 N.E. 902 (N.Y. 1928)


No

SR Internat’l Bus. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. World Trade Center Props., LLC, 2006 WL 3073220 (S.D. N.Y.)

No

Kumar v. Travelers Ins. Co., 627 N.Y.S. 2d 185 (App. Div. 1995)

North Carolina

Broad Evidence Rule

Surratt v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co., 328 S.E. 2d 16 (N.C. App. 1985)




North Dakota

Fair Market Value

Butler v. Aetna Ins. Co., 256 N.W. 214 (N.D. 1934)




Ohio Replacement Less Depreciation

Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Ins. Co. of N.A., 366 F.S. 749 (N.D. Ohio 1973)



No

See Tiffin Avenue Investors v. Midwestern Indem. Co., 1987 WL 12099 (Ohio App.)

Oklahoma Broad Evidence Rule

Tyler v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 184 P. 3d 496 (Okla. 2008)

Labor costs may be depreciated when using the replacement costs less depreciation method for arriving at ACV

Branch v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 55 P.3d 1023 (2002)

No(exclusion upheld)

Spears v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 73 P.3d 865 (Okla. 2003)


Oregon ReplacementLess Depreciation

Higgins v. Ins. Co. of North America, 469 P.2d 766 (Or. 1970)










Pennsylvania Replacement CostLess Depreciation

But, only where the policy so defines ACV and ultimately provides replacement cost coverage.

Kane v. State Farm, et. al., 841 A.2d 1038 (P.A. Super 2003).

Otherwise, ACV means replacement cost without deduction for depreciation.

Fedas v. Insurance Co., 151 A. 285 (1930).

Insurer which has agreed to pay repair or replacements costs less depreciation in advance of actual repair or replacement of covered loss, could not automatically withhold both depreciation and overhead and profit.

Gilderman v. State Farm Ins. Co., 649 A.2d 941 (1994)

Yes

Regents of the Mercersburg College v. Republic Franklin Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2006)


Rhode Island Broad Evidence Rule

Vogt v. Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Ass’n, 1999 WL 1062207 (R.I. Super.)




South Carolina

Broad Evidence Rule

South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co v. Aetna Ins. Co., 120 S.E.2d 111 (S.C. 1961)




South Dakota Broad Evidence Rule

Lampe Mkt. Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co., 22 N.W.2d 427 (S.D. 1946)




Tennessee Replacement CostLess Depreciation &Broad Evidence Rule

Braddock v. Memphis Fire Ins. Corp., 493 S.W.2d 453 (Tenn. 1973)


Yes

Davidson Hotel Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. co., 261 S.W. 3d 861 (W.D. Tenn. 2001)

No

Chattanooga Bank Assocs. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 301 F. Supp. 2d 774 (E.D. Tenn. 2004)








Texas Fair Market Value

U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Stricklin, 556 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. App. 1977)

But see Manhattan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Melton, 329 S.W. 2d 338 (Tex. App. 1959) (suggesting Broad Evidence Rule applies where depreciation is not susceptible of being determined)

Withholding contractor’s overhead, profit, and sales tax from insured’s actual cash appraisal award was improper; policy entitled insured to recover actual cash value of the loss, less the deductible.

Ghoman v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 159 F.Supp.2d 928, 934 (N.D. Tex. 2001)

But see

An insurer may depreciate overhead and profit from its ACV payment.

Tolar v. Allstate Texas Lloyd’s Co., 772 F.Supp.2d 825 (N.D. Tex. 2011)

Yes

Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Benihana of Tokyo, Inc., 1997 WL 361617 (N.D. Tex. 1997)

No

See Fitzhugh 25 Partners, L.P. v. Kiln Syndicate KLN 501, 261 S.W. 3d 861 (Tex. App. 2008)

Utah No first party property cases




Vermont Broad Evidence Rule

Eagle Square Mfg. Co. v. Vermont Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 212 A.2d 636 (Vt. 1965)




Virginia Broad Evidence Rule

Harper v. Penn Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 199 F.S. 663 (E.D. Va. 1961)




Washington Fair Market Value

National Fire Ins. Co. v. Solomon, 638 P.2d 1259 (Wash. 1982)


Yes / No

Starczewski v. Unigard Ins. Group, 810 P.2d 58 (Wash App. 1991)

But no recovery where policy limited to “like kind and quality” and “like construction”

Roberts v. Allied Group Ins. Co., 901 P.2d 317 (Wash App. 1995)

No

See Hess v. North Pacific Ins. Co., 859 P.2d 586 (Wash. 1993)

West Virginia No first party property cases










Wisconsin Broad Evidence Rule

Wickman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 616 F.Supp. 2d 909 (E.D. Wis. 2009)




Wyoming No first party property cases





Valued Policy Laws

Valued policy laws provide a means by which to establish an agreed value of the insured property in the event of a total loss. These laws generally require the insurer to pay the face amount of the insurance policy and obviate the need for the insured to prove the value of the property if it sustains a total loss. They prevent the insurer from collecting premiums based on an overvaluation of the property and then limiting payment to a lower value once a loss occurs. Accordingly, valued policy laws help prevent disputes and delays in the claims handling process.

In applying valued policy laws, a key issue is whether there has been a total loss. Several tests have been established by the courts to define whether there has been a total loss. The tests are known as: the identity test, the restoration to use test, and the absence of value test. Some states apply a combination of these tests.

Under the identity test, a property is deemed to be a total loss if it has lost its identity and specific character, even though part of the property remains standing. A property may be considered a total loss under the identity test even if some of the remaining property may be used for another purpose.

Where the restoration to use test is applied, the issue is whether a reasonably prudent uninsured owner would use the property that remains to restore the property to its preloss condition. Thus, under this test, the property is not considered a total loss if part of the remaining property can be reasonably adapted to restore the property into its condition prior to the loss.

For a property to be declared a total loss under the absence of value test, the cost to repair the damaged property must exceed the value of the property. Thus, if it will cost more to save and use the remaining property than the value of that remaining property, the loss is total.

Another issue may be whether the cause of loss is exempted by the statute. Some states limit their valued policy laws to specific perils, such as fire and lightning.

Valued policy statutes generally apply only to real property, not to personal property. In addition, many valued policy laws do not cover blanket or builder’s risk policies.

Another issue that may come into play is the situation where more than one policy is in effect at the time of loss. Some states have addressed this situation, while others have not.

The pages that follow provide an overview of the valued policy laws among the states that currently mandate these statutes.


Valued Policy LawsJurisdiction Statute Perils

CoveredLimitations Total Loss Defined Multiple Policy Issues

Alabama No

Alaska No

Arizona No

Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §23-88-101

Fire and natural disaster; but not flood and earthquake insurance

Does not apply to: flood and earthquake insurance; personal property; detached or appurtenant structures

Whether a reasonably prudent person would utilize a remaining remnant to reconstruct the building. Phoenix Assur. Co., v. Loetscher, 219 S.W. 2d 629 (Ark. 1949)

Insurer must pay full face value of policy even where insured obtained 2 separate insurance policies for 1 insurable interest.St. Paul Reins. Co. v. Irons, 45 S.W.3d 366 (Ark. 2001)

California Cal. Ins. Code §§2054, 2055

Fire only Buildings or structures Identity test.A total loss does not mean an absolute extinction. The question is not whether all the parts and materials composing the building are absolutely or physically destroyed, but whether the thing insured still exists as a building. Williams v. Hartford Ins. Co., 54 Cal. 442, 1880 WL 1974 (Cal. 1880)

Pro rata

Colorado No

Connecticut No

Delaware No


No

Florida Fla. Stat. Ann. §627.702

All covered perils

Does not apply to: personal property; “unscheduled” appurtenant structures; completed value of building insured under builder’s risk policy; blanket policies; special rules for mobile homes or manufactured buildings

Identity test.The building has lost its identity and specific character as a building, and becomes so far disintegrated, it cannot be possibly designated as a building, although some part of it may remain standing. It matters not that some debris remains which may be useful or valuable for some purposes.Lafayette Fire Ins. Co. v. Camnitz, 149 So. 653 (Fla. 1933)

Statute does not apply when “(a) Insurance policies are issued or renewed by more than one company insuring the same building, structure, mobile home, or manufactured building, and the existence of such additional insurance is not disclosed by the insured to all insurers issuing such policies;...”




Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §33-32-5

Fire only Only applies to one or two family residential buildings or structures

Does not apply to: completed value of building insured under builder’s risk policy; loss within 30 days of original effective date of the policy; 2 or more buildings insured under blanket form for single amount

Absence of Value Test

Finding that house was “wholly destroyed by fire,” thus justifying recovery for policy limits under statute, was supported by evidence that it would cost more to repair house than to replace it and by photographs showing that house was substantially gutted by fire. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 385 S.E. 2d 87 (Ga. App. 1989)

Statute does not apply if insurance policies are issued or renewed by more than one company insuring the same building or structure against fire and the existence of the additional insurance is not disclosed by the insured to all insurers issuing policies.

Hawaii No

Idaho No

Illinois No

Indiana No

Iowa Iowa Code Ann. §515.135(Repealed on April 19, 2011)

All perils Buildings Issue has not been addressed

Pro rataCole v. Iowa State (Mut.) Ins. Co., 205 N.W. 3 (Iowa 1925)

Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §40-905

Covered loss by fire, tornado, windstorm or lightning

Does not apply to: builder’s risk policy covering property under construction; new policies or fire insurance on existing policies where coverage was increased by 25% or more, in effect for less than 60 days prior to loss (subject to partial premium refund) unless fire loss was caused by lightning

Identity test

The destruction of the insured property to such extent as to deprive it of the character in which it was insured. Although some portion of the building may remain after the loss, if the portion cannot be reasonably used to advantage in the reconstruction of the building, or will not bring more money than sufficient to remove the ruins, such building is a total loss. Liverpool & L. &G. Ins. Co. v. Heckman, 67 P. 879 (Kan. 1902)

Issue has not been addressed

Kentucky No




Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 22:1318

All perilsCaruso v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 WL 625830 (E.D. La.)

Only applies to inanimate, immovable property. Does not apply to builder’s risk policies or blanket policies; Insurer’s liability shall not exceed insured’s insurable interest

Total loss cannot be caused by insured’s failure to mitigate damages. Real Asset Management, Inc. v. Lloyd’s of London, 61 F.3d 1223 (C.A.5 La.),1995.

Absence of value test Dumond v. Mobile Ins. Co., 309 So. 2d 776 (La. App. 1975)

When the cost to repair exceeds the value of the property, the property is considered a “total loss,” for purpose of claim. Bradley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 620 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2010)

Each insurer liable for full amount of its policy where total loss greater than face value of applicable policy. Outcome subject to challenge on insurable interest test if total coverage was “so greatly in excess of the value of the property destroyed that insurance provided by one or more policies was truly surplus.” Harvey v. General Guaranty Ins. Co., 201 So. 2d 689 (La. App. 1967)

Maine No

Maryland No

Massachusetts No, but see M.G.L.A. 175 § 96

Michigan No

Minnesota Minn. Stat. Ann. §65A.08

All perils Does not apply to FAIR plan; special provisions for farm buildings or other structures; Does not apply to builder’s risk policies.White v. N.H. Ins. Co., 390 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. App. 1986)

Restoration to use test.Poppitz v. German Ins. Co., 88 N.W. 438 (Minn. 1901)

A building is not a “total loss” under the standard fire insurance policy unless it has been so far destroyed by the fire that no substantial part or portion of it above ground remains in place capable of being safely utilized in restoring the building to the condition in which it was before the fire. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Investments, LLC, 827 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2013.

If 2 or more policies on the property, each contributes to the payment of the loss in proportion to he amount specified.




Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. §83-13-5

Fire only Only applies to buildings and structures

Restoration to use test

There must be a substantial, usable remnant of the building surviving. The substantial part of the structure in place must be susceptible to reasonable repairs and reconstruction. And whether there is a substantial part of the building left, to prevent it from being only a partial loss, is often a question of fact for the jury. Home Ins. Co. v. Greene, 229 So. 2d 576 (Miss. 1969)

Each insurer liable for full amount of policy where multiple policies written with insurers’ consent. Western Assur. Co. v. Phelps, 27 So. 745 (Miss. 1900)

Missouri Mo. Ann. Stat. §379.140

Loss by fire All property - real and personalStalhberg v. Travelers Indem. Co., 568 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. App. 1978) Statute provides for a reduction in payment to the extent insurer can prove depreciation in value between policy inception and date of loss.

Identity test Stalhberg v. Travelers Indem. Co., 568 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. App. 1978)

1) When the structure has lost its identity as a building; 2) when no prudent and uninsured individual would rebuild the structure; 3) when the law prohibits rebuilding; or 4) when rebuilding the structure would be more expensive than simply starting over. Haught v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2235937 E.D.Mo., 2009.

Each insurer must pay full amount of its policy. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Southwest Baptist College, Inc., 381 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. 1964)

Montana Mont. Code Ann. §33-24-102

All perils Only applies to improvements upon real property (i.e., buildings and other structures)

Identity testAlthough still standing, the insured structure had lost its identity as a building. It was wholly destroyed although individual materials were salvaged and had some value. Meccage v. Spartan Ins. Co., 477 P. 2d 115 (Mont. 1970)

An “escape clause” in one policy was enforceable where insured was fully compensated by the other policy.National Cas. Co. v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co., 19 P. 3d 223 (Mont. 2001)




Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §44-501.02

Loss by fire, tornado, windstorm, lightning, or explosion

Only applies to real property; Does not apply where insured amount is a percentage coverageMorris v. American & Foreign Ins. Co., 35 N.W.2d 832 (Neb. 1949)

Combination of tests

A building that is destroyed, even though walls are standing, is unsafe to use for the purpose of rebuilding and must be torn down; or the cost to repair the home is greater than the cost to replace the home. Totally destroyed is a combination of the value of that property and the cost of repair. Duda v. American Fam. Ins. Group, 2002 WL 31108172 (Neb. App.)

Where 2 policies are issued to a common insured and each policy contains a pro rata clause and a prohibition against other insurance but no provision voiding the policy for violating the prohibition, both policies remain in force and the pro rata clauses apply to any covered loss. Kent v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 205 N.W.2d 532 (Neb. 1973)

Nevada No

New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §407:11

Fire or lightning only

Only applies to buildings

Does not apply to blanket policies covering 2 or more buildings or 1 or more buildings and personal property

If a building insured for a specified amount, whether under a separate policy or under a policy also covering other buildings, is totally destroyed by fire or lightning without criminal fault on the part of the insured or his assignee, the sum for which such building is insured shall be taken to be the value of the insured’s interest therein unless overinsurance thereon was fraudulently obtained.

Identity test

A building must physically be a total loss that it loses its identity as a building. Firemen’s Ins. Co. v. Houle, 69 A.2d 696 (N.H. 1949)


New Jersey No

New Mexico No

New York No

North Carolina No




North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §26.1-39-05

All perils Does not apply to: property under construction under builder’s risk policy; personal property; appurtenant or separate structures; limitations on losses within 90 days after policy was issued or after limits were increased by 25% or more at insured’s request

Identity test

A fire loss is considered total if a building has lost its identity and specific character even though some parts remain standing. Stevick v. Northwest G.F. Mut. Ins. Co., 281 N.W. 2d 60 (N.D. 1979)

Each insurer shall contribute proportionally.

Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §3929.25

Loss by fire or lightning

Only applies to buildings or structures

However, if the policy of insurance requires actual repair or replacement of the building or structure to be completed in order for the policyholder to be paid the cost of such repair or replacement, without deduction for depreciation or obsolescence, up to the limits of the policy, then the amount to be paid shall be as prescribed by the policy.

Identity test

It is not necessary that all the material composing the building be destroyed. It is sufficient, though some parts of it remain standing, that the building has lost its identity and specific character as a building. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Drackett, 57 N.E. 962 (Ohio 1900)

All policies must pay face value with regard to buildings or structures. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Dennison, 113 N.E. 260 (Ohio 1916)

Oklahoma No VPL, but see 36 Okla. St. Ann. §4804 that states

An insurance carrier shall not issue fire insurance for an amount that exceeds the fair value of the property. If buildings insured against loss by fire are totally destroyed by fire, the carrier shall not be liable beyond the actual value of the insured property at the time of the loss, and the assured shall be reimbursed the proportionate excess of premiums paid on the difference between the amount named in the policy and the actual value, with interest at six per centum per annum from the date of issue.

Oregon No

Pennsylvania No

Rhode Island No




South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. §38-75-20

Fire only Does not apply to chattel or personal property


Policies considered contributive and, if aggregate exceeds insurable value of property as agreed, each insurer is liable for its pro rata share

South Dakota S.D. Cod. Laws §58-10-10

Loss by fire, tornado, or lightning

Only applies to real propertyDoes not apply to: “unscheduled” appurtenant structures unless a specific value is assigned; new policies or renewal policies where coverage was increased by 25% or more in effect for less than 90 days prior to loss (subject to exceptions); builder’s risk policy covering property in process of being constructed; commercial blanket form covering 2 or more buildings


Loss will be apportioned between insurers.

Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. §56-7-801

Tenn. Code Ann. §56-7-802

Tenn. Code Ann. §56-7-803

Fire only Buildings and structures

Applies to losses occurring more than 90 days after policy inception.Tenn. Code Ann. §56-7-803


While some of the building remained after the fire, the burned structure was practically worthless and required to be taken down. King v. Dunlap, 945 S.W. 2d 736 (Tenn. 1996)

Between valued policy and open policy, open policy insurer only liable for excess above valued policy limits.Commercial Union ins. Co. v. Sneed, 541 S.W. 2d 943 (Tenn. 1976)




Texas Tex. Ins. Code §862.053

Fire only Does not apply to personal property


Whether a reasonably prudent owner, uninsured, desiring a structure like the one in question before the fire, would use the remnants of the structure to rebuild. Hochheim Prairie Farm Mut. Ins. Ass’n v. Burnett, 698 S.W. 2d 271 (Tex. App. 1985)

Pro rata clause does not apply to valued policy statute if concurrent policies issued with insurers’ knowledge or consent.American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 205 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. App. 1947)

Utah No

Vermont No, but see 8 Vt. Stat Ann. Ins. Code §3961

Whenever a policy covering a building has a co-insurance clause, or any similar clause requiring the insured to carry insurance in amount equal to any percentage of the value of such building, the insured may ask for a valuation of such building, which valuation may be agreed upon in writing, and shall be the valuation of the property for the purpose of fixing the liability of the company during the life of the policy.

Virginia No

Washington No

West Virginia W.Va. Code §33-17-9

All covered perils

Only applies to real property (i.e., buildings and other structures)

Does not apply to Farmers’ Mutual Fire Insurance Companies W.Va. Code §33-22-7

Identity test and restoration to use test

Under a fire insurance policy the building need not be utterly destroyed and extinguished. If its identity is gone, if its remnant cannot be used as a basis of repair or restoration, the loss is total. Nicholas v. Granite State Fire Ins. Co., 24 S.E. 2d 280 (W.Va. 1943)

Statute does not apply




Wisconsin Wis. Stat. Ann. §632.05(2)

All perils Only applies to real property (i.e., building and other structures) owned or occupied by the insured primarily as a dwelling

Identity test

Total loss does not mean that the material of which the building is composed shall be annihilated or reduced to a shapeless mass; when the identity of the structure as a building is destroyed, so that its specific character as such no longer remains and there is nothing left but the cellar walls and a dilapidated foundation, the loss is total. Fischer v. Harmony Town Ins. Co., 24 N.W.2d 887 (Wis. 1946)

Insurers’ shares determined by policy language where insurer does not consent to concurrent policiesWegner v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 728 N.W. 2d 30 (Wis. App. 2006); Wis. Stat. Ann. §631.43(1)

Wyoming No


Date of Loss Determination for Progressive Losses

Determining the date of loss for first-party property claims can be difficult where there has been a continuous or progressive loss. These types of losses involve property damage which progressively worsens over an extended period of time but which are not readily discoverable by the injured party until late in the deterioration process when the damage “manifests.”

The progressive loss situation has been analyzed in depth in the context of liability insurance policies under the “trigger of coverage” theories. Many courts try and apply the “trigger of coverage” theories from liability cases to first-party property cases. Despite these liability based references to “trigger of coverage,” the more accurate terminology for a first-party property case is the date of loss determination. Nevertheless, because the court decisions typically use liability terms, this compendium refers to the terminology the claim person will encounter.

There are in essence three different types of coverage theories that have been utilized by the courts in first-party property cases:

The “Manifestation” theory provides that property damage “occurs” when damage is or should have been known to the insured, such that a reasonable insured would be aware of a duty to notify the insurer.

The “Continuous” theory provides that coverage is triggered for a loss under all policies in effect from the time any property is first exposed to the peril causing the damage, through the time of the manifestation of the damage.

The “Injury-in-Fact” theory provides that damage “occurs” at the time the insured property, in fact, suffered damage, regardless of whether that damage became known to the insured at that time.

When determining the date of loss to be applied to a progressive loss situation, the language of the policy of insurance must be examined as it may control which theory is applied, depending on the jurisdiction. This chart provides guidance on how specific jurisdictions have addressed specific progressive losses based on specific policy language.


Date of Loss Determination for Progressive LossesJurisdiction Trigger of Coverage

Theory Applied Commentary

Alabama N/A No first party property decisions.

Alaska N/A No first party property decisions.

Arizona N/A No first party property decisions.

Arkansas N/A No first party property decisions.

California Manifestation When the loss occurs over periods of successive policies and is not discovered until several years after loss commences, the manifestation rule applies and the insurer that is on risk at the time of manifestation of the loss is solely responsible for indemnification once coverage is found to exist. Prudential-LMI Com. Insurance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 674, 798 P.2d 1230 (Cal. 1990).

Colorado N/A No first party property decisions.

Connecticut Manifestation Loss period began to run when a reasonable person should have realized the cracks in the basement wall indicated a serious structural problem existed. Parker v. Worcester Ins. Co., 247 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001).

Delaware Injury-in-Fact The loss occurs when the actual event happens, not what led to it. The collapse happened when the government, in the person of the building inspector, declared the building unsafe for occupancy. Olde Colonial Village Condominium Council v. Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 WL 122885 (Del.Super. 2002).


N/A No first party property decisions.

Florida N/A No first party property decisions.

Georgia N/A No first party property decisions.

Hawaii N/A No first party property decisions.

Idaho Injury-in-Fact Loss occurred when the homeowner was actually damaged, not when the event which caused the loss occurred. Melichar v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 152 P.3d 587 (Idaho 2007).

Illinois Continuous Coverage was triggered under any policy in effect between the installation and the removal or containment of the materials, even if the costs were incurred after the policy expired. Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211 v. International Insurance Company, 308 Ill.App.3d 597, 720 N.E.2d 622, 242 Ill.Dec. 1 (Ill. App. 1999).

Indiana N/A No first party property decisions.

Iowa N/A No first party property decisions.

Kansas N/A No first party property decisions.

Kentucky N/A No first party property decisions.

Louisiana Disputed (Injury-in-fact & Manifestation)

Irrespective of when the process began that eventually led to the collapse, in order to have coverage the evidence must preponderate that the extensive damage (assumed to be a collapse) occurred during one of the policy periods. Davidson v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 576 So.2d 586 (La.App., 4th Cir. 1991).The court concluded that the terms “occurs” as meaning “appears” or “becomes evident”, and also states that this interpretation is “just as reasonable, if not more so, as an interpretation of ‘occurs’ to mean ‘happens’ or ‘comes into existence.’ Because the manifestation theory is more favorable to the insured and the court deemed the policy language ambiguous it applied the manifestation theory. Mangerchine v. Reaves, 63 So.3d 1049 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2011)




Maine N/A No first party property decisions.

Maryland N/A No first party property decisions.

Massachusetts Injury-in-fact The loss was discovered during the policy period, however, the “loss” preceded the effective date of the policy. Pirie v. Federal Ins. Co., 45 Mass.App.Ct. 907, 696 N.E.2d 553 (Mass. App. 1998).

Michigan N/A No first party property decisions.

Minnesota Manifestation One year limitation to bring suit in homeowners policy began to run when severity of damage became apparent, five years after original damage claim caused by severe thunderstorm. O’Reilly v. Allstate Ins. Co., 474 N.W. 2 d 221 (Minn. App. 1991).

Mississippi N/A No first party property decisions.

Missouri Manifestation The policy had expired by the dates of the subsequent breakdowns. The “accidents” occurred at a time when the policy was no longer in effect. Thus, the prior insurance carrier is not liable to plaintiff for payment. Community Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, 580 F.Supp. 1170 (D.C. Mo. 1984).

Montana N/A No first party property decisions.

Nebraska Injury-in-Fact “‘Occurrence’ means when damage commences.” KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4790997 (D. Neb.)

Nevada Manifestation The carrier whose policy was effective when progressive damage became manifest is liable. Jackson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 835 P.2d 786 (Nev. 1992).

New Hampshire N/A No first party property decisions.

New Jersey Manifestation The manifest trigger rule, rather than the continuous loss trigger, applies to first-party property insurance coverage for progressive loss; prior to the manifestation of damage, the loss is still a contingency, and the insured has not suffered a compensable loss. Winding Hills Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. North Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 752 A.2d 837 (N.J 2000).

New Mexico Injury-in-Fact Asbestos in property before policy was in effect not covered since diminution in value of property was discovered, but not caused, during policy period. Leafland Group - II, Montgomery Towers Limited Partnership v. Insurance Co. of America, 881 P.2d 26 (N.M. 1994).

New York Manifestation Ability of the insured to secure full coverage annually mandates application of the rule to first party insurance policies. See Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 311 F. 3d 226, 233 (3d Cir. 2002).

North Carolina Injury-in-fact Where the date of the injury-in-fact can be known with certainty, the insurance policy or policies on the risk on that date are triggered. Instead of examining when the harm manifested, North Carolina courts look to the cause of the property damage rather than to the effect. Nelson v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, 177 N.C.App. 595, 630 S.E.2d 221 (N.C. App. 2006)

North Dakota N/A The language of the policy itself, as well as the nature of the loss or damage, must be examined to determine the appropriate trigger. Kief Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Company, 534 N.W.2d 28 (N.D. 1995) (applying injury-in-fact to the loss based on the policy language and facts of the claim).

Ohio Continuous The loss occurred and damage was detected during the policy periods. Coverage is triggered so long as property damage occurs during the policy period. Polk v. Landings of Walden Condominium Ass’n, 2005 WL 1862126 (Ohio App. 2005).




Oklahoma N/A No first party property decisions.

Oregon N/A No first party property decisions.

Pennsylvania Manifestation For insurance purposes, damages “occur” when they first manifest themselves in a way that could be ascertained by reasonable diligence. Bostick v. ITT Hartford Group, Inc., 56 F.Supp.2d 580 (E.D. Pa. 1999).

Rhode Island N/A No first party property decisions.

South Carolina N/A No first party property decisions.

South Dakota N/A No first party property decisions.

Tennessee N/A No first party property decisions.

Texas Manifestation Date that rot, mold, or other fungi from plumbing leak in crawl space was capable of being easily perceived, recognized, and understood was trigger of coverage under manifestation theory; the mold did not become manifest when theoretically capable of being perceived. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hunter, 242 S.W. 3d 137 (Tex.App. 2007). Under Texas law, a party cannot be said to sustain actual property damage until such damage becomes manifest. Insurance coverage is not even triggered until identifiable damage occurs during the policy period. Flores v. Allstate Texas Lloyd’s Company, 278 F.Supp.2d 810 (S.D.Tex. 2003).

Utah N/A No first party property decisions.

Vermont N/A The policy language, rather than any specific theory of coverage trigger, such as the manifestation theory, determined whether the property insurer was “on the risk” at the time of the damage. Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., 72 F.Supp.2d 441 (D. Vermont 1999).

Virginia N/A No first party property decisions.

Washington N/A The emphasis for determining the appropriate theory is on close scrutiny and interpretation of policy contract language and the facts of the particular loss. Ellis Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 72 P.3d 1086 (Wash. App. 2003) (applying injury-in-fact to the loss based on the policy language and facts of the claim).

West Virginia N/A No first party property decisions.

Wisconsin Continuous Language of the policy of insurance indicate that a continuous trigger approach is applicable to mold and water damage claims. Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 WL 2822011 (E.D. Wis.).

Wyoming N/A No first party property decisions.


Appraisal

The appraisal provision in the policy of insurance is intended to serve as a way to save both time and expense in the resolution of a claim. Generally speaking, the appraisal process is utilized to determine only the amount of loss or damage in the event the insurer and insured are unable to agree. However, the scope of the appraisal process and the issues that are permitted to be addressed by the appraisal panel varies. Some jurisdictions have expanded the scope of the appraisal to include a determination of the cause of damage. The scope of the appraisal process in specific jurisdictions is discussed in the scope column of the chart.

In addition to differences in the scope of the appraisal process, some jurisdictions require enforcement of the appraisal provision in a specific manner. Some jurisdictions hold that an insurance carrier waives the appraisal process through its conduct or by failing to request appraisal in a timely manner. The differences in timing and potential waiver are discussed in the timing column of the chart.

Finally, some jurisdictions have unique rulings or address different facets of the appraisal process, the appraisal award or the appraisal panel. These decisions impact the appraisal proceeding and the appraisal award. Some of these decisions are outlined in the miscellaneous column of the chart.


AppraisalJurisdiction Scope Timing Miscellaneous

Alabama An appraiser’s duty is limited to determining the “amount of loss”-the monetary value of the property damage. Appraisers are not vested with the authority to decide questions of coverage and liability. Rogers v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 984 So.2d 382 (Ala. 2007).

There was no waiver of appraisal where the insurer waited 14 months after the loss to request appraisal unless substantial prejudice is shown. Rogers v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.,984 So.2d 382 (Ala. 2007).

The standards used in arbitration proceeds are applicable to the question of waiver under an insurance appraisal clause — although in other respects the narrow purpose and the lack of an evidentiary hearing make appraisal a much different procedure than arbitration. Rogers v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.,984 So.2d 382 (Ala. 2007).

“It is well settled under Alabama law that a party may waive its right to arbitrate a dispute if it substantially invokes the litigation process and thereby substantially prejudices the party opposing arbitration.” Rogers v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.,984 So.2d 382 (Ala. 2007).

Appraisers in an appraisal “are not obliged to give the rival claimants any formal notice or to hear evidence, but may proceed by ex parte investigation so long as the parties are given opportunity to make statements and explanations with regard to matters in issue.” Rogers v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.,984 So.2d 382 (Ala. 2007) citing Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Yother, 439 So.2d 77, 79-80 (Ala.1983).

Alaska Substantial compliance with the requirements of the policy of insurance (sworn statement in proof of loss, inventory of damaged items, etc.) was required prior to proceeding with the appraisal process. Based on the facts, upon substantial compliance, the insurer could not argue that strict compliance was required. Insurance Co. of North America v. University of Alaska, 669 P.2d 954 (Alaska 1983).



Arizona The appraisal panel may determine the amount of loss but is without authority to resolve questions of coverage and they may not interpret policy provisions. Accordingly, the panel could not determine coverage deductibles, credits or offsets of any kind, interest, attorney fees, and other professional fees. Hanson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 283, 723 P.2d 101 (Ariz.App. 1986).

A party waives its right to enforce an appraisal right by expressly waving the right; or by acquiescing in the other party’s repudiation of the agreement to submit to an appraisal process; or by acting in a manner inconsistent with submitting to or enforcing a requirement to submit to appraisal, including preventing an appraisal, disregarding an instigated appraisal, or unreasonably delaying any requested submission to an agreement for an appraisal. Smith v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co., 2005 WL 2620537 (D.Ariz. 2005).

Arkansas Appraisal provisions are void and unenforceable. A.C.A. § 23-79-203; Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., v. Davis, 130 Ark. 576, 198 S.W. 127 (Ark. 1917).



California Appraisers have the power only to determine a specific question of fact, namely, the actual cash value of the insured item. Kacha v. Allstate Ins. Co., 140 Cal.App.4th 1023, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 (Cal. App. 2006) citing Safeco Ins. Co. v. Sharma, 160 Cal.App.3d 1060, 1063, 207 Cal.Rptr. 104 (Cal. 1984). Appraisers may not make coverage determinations as such determinations will exceed the appraiser’s authority. Kacha v. Allstate Ins. Co., 140 Cal.App.4th 1023, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 (Cal. App. 2006).

The language of the appraisal clause applies to the amount of loss. The required appraisal proceedings are limited to those to which the parties have agreed, i.e., appraisal of the loss. Through an endorsement, the parties agreed that replacement cost replaces actual cash value. Therefore, the appraisal panel could determine the replacement cost. Unetco Industries Exchange v. Homestead Ins. Co., 57 Cal.App.4th 1459, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 784 (Cal. App. 1997).

Waiver of the right to compel arbitration or appraisal may be established where the party seeking arbitration or appraisal has previously taken steps inconsistent with an intent to invoke arbitration, unreasonably delayed in seeking arbitration, or acted in bad faith or with willful misconduct. Martinez v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., 2003 WL 150116 (Cal. App. 2003), citing Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., 83 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1250, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 403 (Cal. App. 2000).

An agreement to conduct an appraisal contained in a policy of insurance constitutes an “agreement” within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure’s arbitration section and therefore is considered an arbitration agreement and subject to the statutory contractual arbitration law. (Ann.Cal.Ins.Code §2071) Alexander v. Farmers Insurance Company, 219 Cal.App.4th 1183, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 455 (Cal.App. 2013); and Lambert v. Carneghi, 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 626 (Cal.App.2008).

A confirmed award of appraisers and umpire in a fire insurance appraisal proceeding is treated as a confirmed arbitration award, which has the same force and effect as a judgment in a civil action. (Ann.Cal.Ins.Code §2071) Lambert v. Carneghi, 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 626 (Cal.App.2008).

The statutory requirement that party-selected appraisers in fire insurance appraisal proceeding be “competent and neutral” in effect constitutes a contractual agreement between the insurer and insured to select neutral appraisers. (Ann.Cal.Ins.Code §2071) Mahnke v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 180 Cal.App.4th 565, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 (Cal.App.2009)

A trial court’s statutory authority, in confirming an appraisal award, which does not decide liability issues under a fire policy, is limited to the issuance of a judgment which brings finality to the dollar amount of the replacement cost value. Ann.Cal.Ins.Code §2071; Ann.Cal.C.C.P. §1287.4. Devonwood Condominium Owners Assoc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 162 Cal.App.4th 1498, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 (Cal.App. 2008)

Colorado Appraisers must consider evidence from whatever source regarding the value of the loss. This includes testimony from the insured at a properly noticed appraisal meeting. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Walsenburg Land & Development Co., 86 Colo. 72, 278 P. 602 (Colo. 1929).

An appraisal provision is not a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit. By invoking the appraisal process the insured waived its right to a judicial proceeding as to the amount of loss. Wagner v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 141 Colo. 367, 348 P.2d 150 (Colo. 1960).



Connecticut The scope of the appraisers’ powers and duties is limited by the terms of the policy, by the statutory provisions of General Statutes § 38a-307, and by judicial precedent, solely to a determination of the amount of the actual cash value of the fire loss. Steiner v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co., 44 Conn.App. 415, 689 A.2d 1154 (Conn.App. 1997).

Any limitation on the time to request appraisal must be included in the policy of insurance. The failure to include a time limitation for appraisal allows the insured to request appraisal even if it is over 14 months after the date of loss. Trojanowski v. Worcester Ins. Co., 1996 WL 362269 (Conn. Super. 1996) (unpublished opinion).

Appraisal is arbitration. Although appraisal is informal, however, the receipt by the umpire of an informal, ex-parte summary of the claim from the insurance carrier prior to being appointed as the umpire, as well as communications with third-party consultants, are grounds for overturning the appraisal award. Gordon v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2943244 (Conn.Super. 2004) (unpublished opinion).

Delaware Litigation is not appropriate to challenge the appraisers’ valuations or their methodology. Litigation is appropriate for questions of coverage, exclusions, and the provisions of the appraisal clause, itself. AIU Ins. Co. v. Lexes, 815 A.2d 312 (Del.Supr. 2003).

The extent of damage caused by a covered cause of loss should be determined in the appraisal process. Decisions on what is covered and excluded are outside the scope and authority of appraisal. CIGNA Ins. Co. v. Didimoi Property Holdings, N.V., 110 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2000).

Appraisal extends only to a determination of actual cash value, all other issues are reserved for decision by a court. Northeast Financial Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 757 F.Supp. 381 (D.Del. 1991).

The appraisal provisions of the policy, if invoked, provide a mandatory form of arbitration, precluding recourse to the courts and impact the 12 month suit limitation that otherwise might bar any recovery. Closser v. Penn Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 457 A.2d 1081 (Del. 1983).

When the contract fails to specify a time period within which such demand must be made, it must occur within a reasonable time following the loss. Handby ex rel. Hanby v. Maryland Cas. Co., 1969 WL 99810 (Del.Super. 1969).


Appraisal is a method for ascertaining the amount of loss of damage. Appraisal does not determine other issued such as liability and coverage. Roumel v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 225 A.2d 658 (D.C.App. 1967).

Demand for appraisal together with the “no action” clause makes the completion of the process a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit. Roumel v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 225 A.2d 658 (D.C.App. 1967).



Florida Causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss. Causation is an amount-of-loss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is a covered loss, the amount of which is disputed, including situations where a portion of the loss is covered and another portion is excluded. Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 828 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2002).

(Presently this area of law is not clear and there are conflicting opinions as stated below.)

Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the appraisal to go forward while preserving all of insurer’s rights to contest coverage as a matter of law. Sunshine State Ins. Co. v Rawlins, 34 So.3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)

This is contrary to:Once an appraisal award has been issued, an insurer may only challenge the lack of coverage of the entire claim and the insurer cannot challenge part of an appraisal award based on coverage. Muckenfuss v. Hanover Ins. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1174098 (M.D.Fla., 2007.)

Underlying coverage dispute must be resolved prior to appraisal is held. Court states that it disagrees with Rawlins decision. Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Michigan Condominium Ass’n, 46 So.3d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)

The appraisal process can be characterized as a condition precedent that can be waived by acting inconsistent with that right. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd. v. New Park Towers Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 2008 WL 187537 (S.D.Fla. 2008).

Appraisal proceedings are not subject to the requirements of arbitration proceedings. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 833 So.2d 762 (Fla. 2002).

If an insured receives monies pursuant to an appraisal award, that constitutes a “favorable resolution of an underlying breach of contract dispute for purposes of filing a ‘bad-faith’ cause of action.” Trafalgar v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3822215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Appraisal exists for a limited purpose — the determination of “the amount of the loss.” By “confirming” the appraisal award, the trial judge effectively overruled the carrier’s objections to entry of judgment. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill #6 Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 117 So.3d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Georgia Appraisal clauses can only resolve disputed issues of value. Appraisal cannot be utilized to resolve liability issues. McGowan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 281 Ga. 169, 637 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 2006).



Hawaii The appraisal panel should not consider issues pertaining to coverage and liability under the insurance policy as these issues are beyond the scope of the parties agreement to arbitrate. Pursuant to the agreement, the panel is to determine the value of the insured structure prior to the hurricane and the damage sustained by the resort as a result of the hurricane. In addition, the appraisal panel has discretion to consider ordinances, laws and other regulations in its appraisal under the insurance policy because of the endorsement providing coverage for this. Wailua Associates v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 904 F.Supp. 1142 (D. Hawaii 1995).

If it is impossible for an appraiser to distinguish between damages that resulted directly from the collision and damages that resulted from post-collision repair work, the insured will not be compelled to seek an appraisal under the appraisal provision. Miller v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1341157 (D. Hawaii 2007).

Appraisal provisions in insurance contracts are considered arbitration agreements, under certain circumstances. Christiansen v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, 88 Hawaii 442 (Haw.Ct.App.1998), aff ‘d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 88 Hawaii 136 (1998).

Idaho The insurer can waive the appraisal process by its conduct and failing to abide by the terms of the appraisal provision. Hall v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., 179 P.3d 276 (Idaho 2008).



Illinois Committing questions of contract interpretation to an appraiser, whose primary function is to ascertain the value of property or the amount of a loss, is not consistent with the nature of an appraisal. Appraisals determine the value of the property but not which value was to be applied under the terms of the contract. FTI Intern., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 339 Ill.App.3d 258, 790 N.E.2d 908 (Ill.App. 2003).

The appraisal does not operate as a final and binding resolution of the parties’ dispute over the amount of the loss and does not foreclose either party from maintaining an action in a court of law. Stratford West Homeowners Ass’n v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 338 Ill.App.3d 288, 788 N.E.2d 342 (Ill.App. 2003).

Waiver of the right to appraisal occurs when a party’s conduct is so inconsistent with the appraisal clause as to demonstrate abandonment of that right or when the party submits appraisable issues to the court for a decision. Here, appraisal was demanded after payment of the insured’s claim and 10 months after suit was filed. Lundy v. Farmers Group, Inc., 322 Ill.App.3d 214, 750 N.E.2d 314 (Ill.App. 2001).

An appraiser’s actions which are intentionally delay the appraisal process, including the failure to agree to the selection of an umpire, may constitute unreasonable and vexatious conduct and may be attributed to an insurance company when the appraiser acts as the insurer’s agent. McGee v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 315 Ill.App.3d 673, 734 N.E.2d 144 (Ill.App. 2000).

Indiana Appraisal provision of the insurance policy determined the amount of the loss only. Other provisions govern the extent of liability. Weidman v. Erie Ins. Group, 745 N.E.2d 292 (Ind.App. 2001).

When the policy does not state a specified time within which demand for appraisal must be invoked, demand for appraisal must be made within a reasonable time under the circumstances of the case, or the right to demand appraisal is waived. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Backstage, Inc., 537 N.E.2d 528 (Ind.App. 1989).

A material breach of the policy (such as the examination under oath provision) after the appraisal process was commenced, provides the ability of the insurer to withdraw from the appraisal process. Moreover, if the insured breaches the policy, the insurer is not bound by the post-breach appraisal process. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Skoutaris, 453 F.3d 915 (C.A.7 (Ind.) 2006).



Iowa The appraisal process determined “amount of actual cash value and loss,” not legal questions of coverage. Terra Industries, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, 981 F.Supp. 581 (N.D.Iowa 1997).

Demand for appraisal must be timely. An unreasonable delay in demanding appraisal may justify a refusal to proceed with appraisal. Terra Industries, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, 981 F.Supp. 581 (N.D.Iowa 1997).

Appraisal that is required by fire or property insurance policy on written demand of insured or insurer is precondition to suit by either party, if appraisal is demanded by either party prior to suit; however, if no demand for appraisal is made before suit, suit cannot be barred as premature since appraisal is not then precondition to suit. Terra Industries, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, 981 F.Supp. 581 (N.D.Iowa 1997).

A contingent fee arrangement for an appraisal is not proper. The appraisal agreement requires one of the appraisers and the umpire to jointly arrive at a decision. This places the appraiser in the position of decision-maker; thus, the function of the appraiser becomes quasi-judicial. An inherent qualification for a quasi-judicial decision-maker is disinterest in the result. Consequently, the omission of the word “disinterested” in describing “appraiser” in the appraisal agreement does not eliminate the requirement. Furthermore, a disinterested person is defined as one without a pecuniary interest. Central Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 466 N.W.2d 257 (Iowa 1991).

Kansas The appraisal provision is a form of an arbitration clause and is therefore prohibited in an insurance contract by K.S.A. 5-401(c)(1). Friday v. Trinity Universal of Kansas, 262 Kan. 347, 939 P.2d 869 (Kan. 1997).

Kentucky If an appraisal is allowed under the terms of an insurance contract, the court may let the appraiser determine both the cause of loss and the amount of loss. However, the scope of coverage — whether an event is covered under the terms of the policy — is for the court to determine as a matter of law. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Post, 2005 WL 2674987 (E.D.Ky. 2005).



Louisiana The duty of appraisers is merely to ascertain the extent and value of an insured’s loss and not to determine an insurer’s liability. Dore v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5915141 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2013).

The appraisal clause does not set a specific deadline as to when the parties may demand an appraisal of the loss, but, at the same time, it does not provide the parties with an indefinite right to invoke the appraisal clause. Rather, the appraisal clause must be invoked within a reasonable time period after a dispute as to the amount of loss arises, here, two months after suit was filed. Newman v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1063578 (E.D.La. 2007).

An insurer’s request for appraisal, approximately four months after it received sufficient proof of loss from the plaintiffs, was untimely and that plaintiffs are not required to submit to the appraisal procedure. Nguyen v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1672504 (E.D.La. 2007).

An appraiser may be disinterested even if the appraiser was also that party’s adjuster in the same matter, so long as there is no evidence in the record to indicate improper motives. Prien Properties, LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 WL 1733591 (W.D.La. 2008).

There must be a dispute as to the amount of loss to proceed to appraisal. Newman v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1063578 (E.D.La. 2007).

When Excess insurer fails to pay additional amounts owed insured for property damage cause by hurricane within 30 days of receipt of proof, as mandated by statutory provision, LSA-R.S. 22:658., that required such payment after receipt of satisfactory proofs of loss from the insured, even though parties were engaged in arbitration of claims, and appraisal process was ongoing, where Excess insurer knew that amounts owed insured were substantially greater than what had been paid upon its receipt of appraiser’s report, yet failed to pay additional amounts within 30 days of receipt of that information Insurer was held to be in violation of statute and subject to penalties. Willwoods Community v. Essex Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1462117 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2010)

A court may set forth guidelines for the appraisal process. Dufrene v. Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Certificate No. 3051393, 91 So.3d 397 (La.App. 5th Cir 2012).

Maine Based on the language of the provision, the appraisal clause applies only to disputes about value and not to other questions, including in this case whether certain of the goods were stolen and so covered at all. Rankin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 336 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. (Me.) 2003).

Arbitration (the appraisal clause) must be invoked timely or it is deemed to be waived. Rankin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 336 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. (Me.) 2003).

By agreeing to proceed with the appraisal process and accepting an individual as appraiser in spite of knowledge of a possible interest by the appraiser, the insurers waived their right to object to the appraisal award on the basis that the appraiser was not disinterested. County Forest Products v. Green Mountain Agency, Inc., 758 A.2d 59 (Me.,2000).



Maryland If the issue is one of contract interpretation, it is within the competence of the Court, not an appraiser, to resolve. If the issue relates to “the amount of loss,” these will be properly referable to the appraisal process. Wausau Ins. Co. v. Herbert Halperin Distribution Corp., 664 F.Supp. 987 (D.Md., 1987).

Based on the wording of the appraisal clause, a determination by the appraisers of the amount of the loss is a condition precedent to a suit on the policy by the insured. Thus, once the insurer invoked the appraisal clause, it was the insured’s obligation to take part in the process before bringing suit. Rodeheaver v. Hartford Ins. Co. of The Midwest, 2006 WL 2225294 (D.Md. 2006).

Courts may set aside appraisal awards upon the ground of a mistake committed by arbitrators. It is not sufficient to show that they came to a conclusion of fact erroneously, however clearly it may be demonstrated that the inference drawn by them was wrong. It must be shown that, by some error, they were so misled or deceived that they did not apply the rules which they intended to apply to the decision of the case, so that upon their own theory, a mistake was made which has caused the result to be somewhat different from that which they had reached by their reason and judgment. A mistake which will be sufficient to avoid the award must be one that is plain and palpable, such as an erroneous computation or calculation of the amount, and the like. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Adcor Industries, Inc., 158 Fed.Appx. 430, 2005 WL 3419986 (4th Cir. (Md.) 2005).

Massachusetts It is the referees’ duty to decide the amount of loss under the policy, not the amount of loss whether covered by the policy or not. Referees are to find the amount of loss in light of their own interpretation of the terms of the policy, but the question of construction remains open for reexamination in an action following the reference (appraisal). Augenstein v. Insurance Co. of North America, 372 Mass. 30, 360 N.E.2d 320, (Mass. 1977) quoting Fox v. Employers’ Fire Ins. Co., 330 Mass. 283, 113 N.E.2d 63 (Mass. 1953).

Questions of value are submitted to referees while questions of ultimate liability are determined after the reference (appraisal) is completed. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp. v. Traynor, 354 Mass. 763, 237 N.E.2d 34 (Mass. 1968).

The right to reference (appraisal) may be found to have been waived by the failure properly and timely to assert the right. Here, the insurer waited approximately one year after suit had been filed and discovery closed before requesting reference. Anthony v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Mass.L.Rptr. 256 (Mass.Super. 1999).

Massachusetts law dictates that rather than an appraisal provision, an amount of loss provision shall be included in a policy of insurance. M.G.L.A. 175 § 99. This clause is incorporated to each policy of insurance issued.

The reference (appraisal) is a condition precedent to bringing suit, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, §99 and the provisions of the policy. Therefore, unless the reference (appraisal) was waived, a lawsuit is barred until after the reference (appraisal). McCord v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 390 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. (Mass.) 2004).



Michigan The appraisal process is not a proper vehicle for determining the issue of the existence of coverage. The issue of coverage must be determined by a court before an appraisal of damage can proceed. Gjertson v. Pioneer State Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2089166 (Mich.App. 2006). (unpublished decision)

The appraisal language defines a method of determining the value of the damaged property and the insured’s compensable loss resulting from that damage. R.D. Management Corp. V. Philadelphia Indem. Ins., 302 F.Supp.2d 728 (E.D.Mich.2004).

Refusing to arbitrate for an unreasonable length of time may result in waiver of the arbitration/appraisal. Detroit City Dairy, Inc. v. United Nat. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 3333020 (E.D.Mich. 2007).

An insurer can waive coverage issues by failing to reserve them and participating in the appraisal process. Angott v. Chubb Group Ins., 270 Mich.App. 465, 717 N.W.2d 341 (Mich.App. 2006).

The provisions in the insurance policy concerning the appraisal process do not expressly require an exchange of information between appraisers or a meeting. In addition, defendant was aware long before the proposed appraisal award was issued by the umpire that the process being followed did not involve an exchange of information between, or meeting of, the appraisers. However, defendant failed to challenge the procedure until after the award was issued. Professional Team, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 932414 (Mich.App. 2006). (unpublished opinion)

Judicial review of an appraisal award is limited to instances of bad faith, fraud, misconduct, or manifest mistake. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Kwaiser, 190 Mich.App. 482, 486, 476 N.W.2d 467 (1991).

The amount of the appraisal award was binding even if the insured spent less than that amount to perform the repairs. The insurance carrier could not rely on actual expenditures to justify withholding the amount of the appraisal award. Mae Properties, LLC v. Home-Owners Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1048738 (Mich.App. 2005). (unpublished opinion)

Public adjuster with a contingency fee agreement was “independent” and could participate as an appraiser for the policyholder. White v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 293 Mich.App. 419, 809 N.W.2d 637 (Mich.App. 2011).



Minnesota It is well settled that appraisal does not determine liability under a policy. Liability depends on a judicial determination. Johnson v. Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co., 732 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. App. 2007).

The amount of the loss and the cost to repair or replace is precisely the type of factual dispute the policy’s appraisal process is designed for. Sampson v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 2003 WL 22234692 (Minn.App. 2003). (unpublished opinion)

The scope of appraisal is limited to damage questions while liability questions are reserved for the courts. Quade v. Secura Ins., 814 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2012).

Under the standard fire insurance policy statute, property insurer was not entitled to have an appraisal panel decide whether insured’s claim involved a total loss; instead, the district court was the appropriate forum to resolve their dispute. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Investments, LLC, 827 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 2013).

The appraisal provision is not an agreement to arbitrate governed by the Uniform Arbitration Act, and the appraisal provision is governed by the two-year limitation on actions or suits to recover under the policy. A request for appraisal outside the two-year limitation on actions or suits is not timely. Johnson v. Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co., 732 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. App. 2007).

Plain language of the appraisal provision in the standard fire insurance policy statute removes disputes in cases of total loss on buildings from the statutory appraisal process. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Investments, LLC, 827 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 2013).

Mississippi Liability is not fixed by means of an appraisal; there is only a finding of value, price, or amount of loss or damage. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Jones, 235 Miss. 37, 108 So.2d 571 (Miss. 1959).

The court should determine the cause of damage. If the damage is determined to be due to a covered peril, the appraisers should determine the value of the damage. Munn v. National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, 237 Miss. 641, 115 So.2d 54 (Miss. 1959).

Where appraisal is a condition precedent to a lawsuit, a timely demand for appraisal must be complied with by the insured or there can be no recovery under the policy of insurance. Here the insured failed to respond to the demand for appraisal and sold the automobile preventing the appraisal from occurring. Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Conner, 223 Miss. 799, 79 So.2d 236 (Miss. 1955).

No waiver of appraisal where the insured invoked appraisal one month before filing suit, unless substantial prejudice to the insurer is shown. Norwicz v. Markel International Ins. Co., LTD., 2009 WL 2500195 (S.D. Miss.).

A court may set aside an appraisal where the award is so grossly inadequate as to amount to a fraud in effect, although fraud is not charged, or where the appraisers were without authority, or where there is a mistake of fact or to prevent injustice. Children’s Imagination Station v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc., 2008 WL 724049 (S.D.Miss. 2008).

Denial of liability after the insured refuses to participate in appraisal does not constitute a waiver of the appraisal process. Home Insurance Company v. Watts, 229 Miss. 735, 91 So.2d 722 (Miss. 1957).



Missouri A party to appraisal must show substantial compliance with the provision in order to enforce the appraisal process to proceed. Beltramo Enterprises II, Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 744304 (E.D.Mo. 2006).

The arbitration process of appraisal a nd award has no application to a claim of total loss, and an insured’s action of accepting and cashing a settlement draft does not defeat the insured’s claim for a total loss under the valued policy statute. Clark v. Traders Ins. Co., 951 S.W.2d 750 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).

The time to attack the credentials of the court-appointed umpire was at the time of the appointment. Similarly, any challenge to an appraiser should be made at the time of designation. Beltramo Enterprises II, Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 744304 (E.D.Mo. 2006) and Equity Mut. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 886 S.W.2d 221 (Mo.App. W.D. 1994).

Montana Appraisal is proper to determine the value but not to determine coverage. Garretson v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 234 Mont. 103, 761 P.2d 1288 (Mont. 1988).

The appraisal process is a condition precedent if it is requested prior to a lawsuit being filed. Garretson v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 234 Mont. 103, 761 P.2d 1288 (Mont. 1988).

The appraisal process can be a condition precedent to proceeding with a lawsuit even if requested after a lawsuit has been filed. Hopkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 909 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. (Mont.) 1990).

When policy containing appraisal clause does not expressly or impliedly limit time within which demand for appraisal must be made, demand must be made within reasonable time after disagreement has arisen as to amount of Loss. This depends on two factors: (1) whether there was prejudice from the delay and (2) the breakdown of good-faith negotiations concerning the amount of loss. School District No. 1 v. Globe & Republic Ins. Co., 146 Mont. 208, 404 P.2d 889, 14 A.L.R.3d 666 (Mont. 1965).



Nebraska Any predispute effort to bind the parties to forgo resort to the courts on either the right of recovery or the extent of a party’s obligation ousts the courts of their legitimate jurisdiction. These provisions are against public policy and therefore void and unenforceable. Rawlings v. Amco Ins. Co., 231 Neb. 874, 438 N.W.2d 769 (Neb. 1989).

Nevada An appraiser’s power generally does not encompass the disposition of the entire controversy between the parties but extends merely to the resolution of the specific issues of actual cash value and the amount of loss. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Wright, 97 Nev. 308, 629 P.2d 1202 (Nev., 1981).

New Hampshire

An appraisal provision is required to be included in the policy of insurance. N.H. Rev. Stat. §407:22

New Jersey New Jersey employs the “broad evidence rule” under which the appraiser must consider every fact and circumstance which would logically tend to the formation of a correct estimate of the loss, so as to effectuate complete indemnity. Ward v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 332 N.J.Super. 515, 753 A.2d 1214 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2000); Lancellotti v. Maryland Cas. Co., 260 N.J.Super. 579, 617 A.2d 296 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1992).

The fact that an insurance carrier disputed coverage did not necessarily preclude either party from invoking the appraisal process. Ward v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 332 N.J.Super. 515, 753 A.2d 1214 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2000).

New Mexico

New York The scope of coverage provided by an insurance policy is a purely legal issue that cannot be determined by an appraisal, which is limited to factual disputes over the amount of loss for which an insurer is liable. Duane Reade, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 503 F.Supp.2d 699 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

Appraisal clause only applies to case with disagreement as to amount of loss or damage, and not where insurer denies liability. Kawa v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 174 Misc.2d 407, 664 N.Y.S.2d 430 (N.Y.Sup. 1997).

The right to require an appraisal is not indefinite as to time, but must be exercised within a reasonable period, depending upon the facts of the particular case. Neither party can so use the right as to take advantage of the other but both must act in good faith. Richardson v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2000 WL 297171 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), quoting Chainless Cycle Mfg. Co. v. Security Ins. Co., 169 N.Y. 304, 310, 62 N.E. 392, 394 (1901).



North Carolina The umpire acted within the scope of the appraisal provision by valuing the loss. In addition, errors of law or of fact in the appraisal award are insufficient to invalidate the appraisal award. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harrell, 148 N.C.App. 183, 557 S.E.2d 580 (N.C.App. 2001) (specifically, the court upheld the umpire awarding ownership of the damaged property to the insured).

Appraisal is premature when the insured unilaterally disagreed with the insurer’s adjustment of the claim and failed to communicate any amount of loss greater than what the insurer had already paid. Hailey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 640 S.E.2d 849 (N.C. App. 2007).

Participation in the appraisal process was a condition precedent to insured’s ability to file breach of contract suit against insurer; policy explicitly provided that insurer had no obligation to make a loss payment until the parties had either agreed on the amount of the loss or the appraisal process had been completed. Patel v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 728 S.E.2d 394 (N.C. App. 2012).

North Dakota Appraisal establishes only the amount of a loss and not liability for the loss under the insurance contract. Minot Town & Country v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 587 N.W.2d 189 (N.D. 1998).

The provision in an insurance contract calling for an “appraisal” is not the same as an agreement to arbitrate under the state’s arbitration code. Minot Town & Country v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 587 N.W.2d 189 (N.D. 1998).

Ohio An appraisal determines only the amount of loss, without resolving issues such as whether the insurer is liable under the policy. Smith v. Shelby Ins. Group, 1997 WL 799512 (Ohio App. 1997).

The appraisal provision in this case provides merely an independent investigation by experts and was not designed to resolve all the issues between the parties. Phifer-Edwards, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1994 WL 236225 (Ohio App. 1994).

Compliance with appraisal can be waived by the conduct of a party. Phifer-Edwards, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1994 WL 236225 (Ohio App. 1994).

Appraisals are informal. Appraisers typically conduct independent investigations and base their decisions on their own knowledge, without holding formal hearings. Smith v. Shelby Ins. Group, 1997 WL 799512 (Ohio App. 1997).

Generally, a court will not interfere with an appraisal award but, to the contrary, will indulge in every reasonable presumption to sustain it in the absence of fraud, mistake, or misfeasance. A court will not substitute its judgment for that of the appraisers or set aside an award for inadequacy or excessiveness unless it is so palpably wrong as to indicate corruption or bias on the part of the appraisers. Csuhran v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1994 WL 102248 (Ohio App. 1994).

The trial court did not have authority to define the appraisers’ and umpire’s role under the commercial property insurance policy. Hull v. Motorists Ins. Group, 2011 WL 2040958 (Ohio App. 2011).



Oklahoma An appraisal cannot decide issues of coverage, only the amount of loss. (Note: the first part of the decision discusses cases decided befor the standard fire policy was required by statute). Massey v. Farmers Ins. Group, 837 P.2d 880 (Okl.1992).

The appraisal clause of 36 Okl.St.Ann. §4803 does not constitute a condition precedent for maintaining an action on a policy where the insurer, in making demand for an appraisal, reserves the right to litigate the question of liability. Moreover, denial of liability by an insurer waives the right of the insurer to invoke the appraisal provision. Massey v. Farmers Ins. Group, 837 P.2d 880 (Okl.1992).

Sec. 4803 makes appraisal awards binding upon the party invoking the appraisal process, yet makes those same awards non-binding upon the party compelled to participate due to the other party’s demand. Massey v. Farmers Ins. Group, 837 P.2d 880 (Okl.1992).

Oregon Appraisal is to determine the amount of the loss. Kentner v. Gulf Ins. Co., 66 Or.App. 15, 673 P.2d 1354 (Or.App., 1983) reversed on other grounds.

Absent a specific policy provision providing for mandatory appraisal, appraisal must be demanded in order to become mandatory. Molodyh v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 304 Or. 290, 744 P.2d 992 (Or. 1987).

A party that demands appraisal will be deemed to have consented voluntarily to the appraisal process and the appraisal award will be binding upon that party. However, the appraisal award is not binding on the party that did not demand appraisal. Molodyh v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 304 Or. 290, 744 P.2d 992 (Or. 1987).

Pennsylvania An appraisal is limited to determining the amount of loss with all other issues reserved for settlement by either negotiation or litigation. W.V. Realty Inc. v. Maryland Ins. Group, 2000 WL 33252793 (Pa.Com.Pl. 2000); McGourty v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 704 A.2d 663 (Pa.Super. 1997).

To invoke the appraisal provision of an insurance policy, the insurer must admit liability and there must be a dispute only as to the dollar amount of the loss. Santora v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 1998 WL 83966 (E.D.Pa. 1998).

If appraisal is not requested, or the request is fruitless, or appraisal proceedings are inclusive or abandoned by the parties’ joint consent, or liability is denied, then the appraisal provision in the contract may not bar the insured from bringing an action for relief in the courts. An insurer’s denial of a claim prior to answering a lawsuit bars the appraisal process; however, an insurer may for the first time deny liability in its answer to a lawsuit and at the same time pursue an appraisal. Kester v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 726 F.Supp. 1015 (E.D.Pa. 1989).

In the absence of contractual language specifically requiring impartiality, the existence of an arrangement between an insured and his appointed appraiser does not, in and of itself, render the appraiser unfit. Simply proving that an appraiser is partial is not the same as proving that he is incompetent. Payment based on a contingency fee does not automatically disqualify an appraiser. Hozlock v. Donegal Companies/Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 745 A.2d 1261 (Pa.Super. 2000).

Appraisal provisions are revocable, however, and an insurance company may not assert the existence of the appraisal clause despite its own failure to comply with the clause as a defense to the innocent party’s action on the policy. Monarch, Inc. v. St. Paul Property and Liability Ins. Co., 2004 WL 1717618 (E.D.Pa. 2004).



Rhode Island An appraisal panel may award prejudgment interest absent a specific limitation by the parties on interest in the appraisal provision of the policy. Waradzin v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 570 A.2d 649 (R.I. 1990).

Until a determination of liability is found, appraisal may prove to be a waste of time and money. An admission or finding of liability is therefore a prerequisite to appraisal. Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Ass’n v. White Holding Co., 1981 WL 386510 (R.I.Super. 1981).

South Carolina An appraisal provision that leaves the issue of liability to be determined by the courts and is limited to ascertaining the amount of the loss is valid. Hendricks v. American Fire & Cas. Co., 247 S.C. 479, 148 S.E.2d 162 (S.C. 1966).

If appraisal is not a condition precedent, compliance with the appraisal provision is not required before a lawsuit is maintained. If appraisal is a condition precedent, compliance with appraisal is required prior to maintaining a lawsuit. However, an insurer can waive the appraisal process by its conduct. Harwell v. Home Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 228 S.C. 594, 91 S.E.2d 273 (S.C. 1956); Miller v. British America Assur. Co., 238 S.C. 94, 119 S.E.2d 527 (S.C. 1961).

Inadequacy of the award is not grounds to overturn it absent fraud or a showing that an appraiser was not impartial. Hendricks v. American Fire & Cas. Co., 247 S.C. 479, 148 S.E.2d 162 (S.C. 1966).

South Dakota Appraisal provisions appear to be void based on South Dakota statutes. SDCL § 21-25A-3

Tennessee The object of appraisal in cases of casualty insurance is to quantify the monetary value of a property loss. The final responsibility for resolving disputes over causation issues rests with the courts. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Batts, 59 S.W.3d 142 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001).

Appraisal clauses in insurance contracts can be waived by delay in demanding appraisal causing prejudice to the opposing party. J. Wise Smith and Associates, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 925 F.Supp. 528 (W.D.Tenn. 1995).

Appraisal is different from arbitration, the latter being a formal proceeding. With appraisal the appraisers typically conduct an investigation and base decisions on their own knowledge without hearings. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Batts, 59 S.W.3d 142 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001).

Texas Appraisal determines the extent or amount of loss. In re Allstate Cty Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 195 (Tex.2002) and Johnson v. State Farm Lloyds, 204 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App. 2006).

The function of an award pursuant to an appraisal process under an insurance policy is not to determine the merits of any claim. Security Nat. Ins. Co. v. Waloon Inv., Inc., 384 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App. 2012).

Denying coverage waives the right of the insurer to request an appraisal. In re Acadia Ins. Co., 279 S.W.3d 777 (Tex .App. 2007).

A court will indulge every reasonable presumption to sustain an appraisal award. In re Allstate Cty Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 195 (Tex.2002) and Franco v. Slavonic Mut. Fire Ins., 154 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. App. 2004).

Appraisal proceedings are not the same as arbitration. In re Allstate Cty Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 195 (Tex.2002).



Utah Appraisal ordinarily settles only a subsidiary or incidental matter rather than the main controversy. Because the clause is limited to appraisal of the amount of loss, only the contractual claim was covered by the appraisal clause. The determination of the scope of the appraisal clause is a question of law for determination by the court because it is a matter of contract interpretation. In addition, extra-contractual claims are beyond the scope of appraisal. Miller v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 44 P.3d 663 (Utah 2002).

A court must compel compliance with a valid appraisal clause if one party demands appraisal. Miller v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 44 P.3d 663 (Utah 2002).

An appraisal is an informal, independent investigation conducted by individuals who base their decisions on their own knowledge. An appraisal is conducted without hearing or judicial inquiry. Miller v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 44 P.3d 663 (Utah 2002).

Vermont

Virginia An appraisal award is a necessary element of an insured’s lawsuit, if demanded at the appropriate time that it can be demanded and if it can be made. However, an insurer may waive the appraisal process by its conduct. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Drake, 170 Va. 257, 196 S.E. 664 (Va. 1938).

While the insurance policy requires that parties comply with its provisions before bringing suit, the policy does not require parties to submit claims to umpires. An umpire may be requested by either party, but an umpire’s ruling is not a condition precedent to filing suit. The policy holder is not required to forego the filing of an action while the matter is pending before an umpire. Bilicki v. Windsor-Mount Joy Mut. Ins. Co., 954 F.Supp. 129 (E.D.Va. 1996).

Washington Appraisal provides a method for determining the dollar value of the damage sustained. Keesling v. Western Fire Ins. Co. of Fort Scott, Kansas, 10 Wash.App. 841, 520 P.2d 622 (Wash.App. 1974).

The timeliness of a demand for an appraisal in each case depends upon the circumstances as they existed at the time the demand was made. Two elements in determining the timeliness in an appraisal demand are (1) prejudice resulting from the delay, and (2) the breakdown of good-faith negotiations concerning the amount of loss. Keesling v. Western Fire Ins. Co. of Fort Scott, Kansas, 10 Wash.App. 841, 520 P.2d 622 (Wash.App. 1974).

Where the fairness of the appraisal process is questioned by the insured, through allegations of bias, prejudice, or lack of disinterestedness on the part of either an appraiser or the umpire, factual issues properly reserved for jury determination may arise. Bainter v. United Pacific Ins. Co., 50 Wash.App. 242, 748 P.2d 260 (Wash.App. 1988).

West Virginia Under an ordinary appraisal clause, the only issue is the amount of the loss. Questions concerning policy defenses or coverage are not addressed in appraisals. Smithson v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 186 W.Va. 195, 411 S.E.2d 850 (W.Va. 1991).

The narrow purpose of an appraisal and the lack of an evidentiary hearing make it a much different procedure from arbitration. Smithson v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 186 W.Va. 195, 411 S.E.2d 850 (W.Va. 1991).



Wisconsin Appraisers essentially determine one issue regarding valuation. Franz v. Little Black Mutual Ins. Co., 220 Wis.2d 357, 582 N.W.2d 504 (Table) (Wis.App. 1998).

An agreement for an appraisal extends merely to the resolution of the specific issues of actual cash value and the amount of loss, all other issues are reserved for settlement by negotiation, or litigation in an ordinary action upon the policy. Lynch v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 163 Wis.2d 1003, 473 N.W.2d 515 (Wis.App. 1991).

The appraisal process is dispositive of the issue of whether the damage constitutes a total loss. Alioto’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 144 Wis.2d 950, 425 N.W.2d 39 (Wis.App. 1988).

Absent a policy provision to the contrary, an insurance company may not demand an appraisal of a loss after the commencement of an action by the insured on that loss, when the insurance company failed to demand the appraisal prior to the lawsuit even though it had an opportunity to do so. Lynch v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 163 Wis.2d 1003, 473 N.W.2d 515 (Wis.App. 1991).

Insurance appraisers are not full-fledged arbitrators. They are essentially one-issue decision makers who deal solely with valuation. Nonetheless, courts use the same basic scope of review for appraisers and umpires as they do for arbitrators. Franz v. Little Black Mutual Ins. Co., 220 Wis.2d 357, 582 N.W.2d 504 (Table) (Wis.App. 1998).

Appraisal awards are presumptively valid. Review of these awards should usually be limited to the face of the award, and to obtain discovery of persons associated with the appraisal process and awards, the party that wants to obtain such discovery must present prima facie evidence of fraud, bad faith, material mistake, or a failure to understand or complete the appraisal task. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass’n v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 319 Wis. 2d 52, 768 N.W.2d 596 (Wisc. 2009).

Wyoming


Selected Subrogation Topics

Subrogation is a derivative right whereby a party who has satisfied the loss of another, which loss was the result of the wrongful act of a third party, may step into the shoes of the one who has sustained the loss to recover from the wrongdoer. The chart that follows addresses a few of the numerous issues that may arise in connection with a claim for subrogation throughout the 50 states.

Statutes of limitations and statutes of repose are laws which serve to preclude a party from filing a lawsuit after a specific amount of time has passed. Typically, the distinction between a statute of limitation and a statute of repose is the date from which the time limitation is calculated. Under a statute of limitation, the time period usually commences with the date of injury or damage or the date a deficiency was or should have been discovered. The chart that follows provides information regarding statutes of limitation for physical damage to real property arising out of negligence, written contracts, and oral contracts. Although not indicated on the chart, some states have different statutes of limitation for personal property, rather than real property.

In contrast, statutes of repose, which typically involve product liability claims or claims arising from improvements to real property, generally provide protection from lawsuits after a specific time period has passed. The reason for this limitation standard is that many products and services outlive the consumer, the entity which put the product into the stream of commerce, or the design professional. Since the longevity of a building and many products cannot be determined, statutes of repose establish a definite period after which the commercial entity and the design professional can no longer be held liable for injury or damage arising from the product or improvement to real property, irrespective of the date of damage or a date of discovery.

The information concerning the statutes in the following chart is provided with the following caveat. Please be aware that this chart provides only a broad overview of the statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. It does not include each of the various conditions, exceptions, exclusions and requirements of the laws. Some statutes of repose provide extensions when the deficiency is discovered in or near the final year(s) of the statutory period. If this chart indicates a particular statute may be triggered by the claim at issue, the user is cautioned to review the specific statute in its entirety to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the state’s law.

Another issue that arises in the subrogation context is known as the “Made-Whole Doctrine.” Under the “Made-Whole Doctrine,” the insurer cannot assert its right to subrogation until its insured has been fully compensated for the loss. Often, the insurance policy will deal with this doctrine by specific provisions. The chart that follows cites to those first party property cases within the respective states which provide holdings addressing the issue of whether the insured has priority to be made whole for the loss before the insurer can participate in the recovery.


Selected Subrogation Issues Selected Subrogation IssuesJurisdiction Statutes of Limitations For Physical Damage to Real Property Statutes of Repose “Made-Whole Doctrine” Required?

(Does the insured have priority to be made whole for the loss before the insurer can participate in recovery?)

Negligence Written Contract

Oral Contract Claims Arising FromProducts

Claims Arising From Improvements to Real Property

Alabama 2 yearsAla. Code §6-2-38

6 yearsAla. Code §6-2-34


Within 10 years after product first put to useAla. Code §6-5-502 *

13 years after substantial completion (exceptions apply; see statute)Ala. Code §6-5-221

Yesabsent agreement to the contrary Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hugh Cole Builder, Inc., 772 So.2d 1145 (Ala. 2000)

Alaska 6 years Alaska Stat. §09.10.050

3 yearsAlaska Stat. §09.10.053


None 10 years after substantial completion or after last act that allegedly caused injury, death or property damage. Specifically excluded defective products.Alaska Stat. §09.10.055 *

No first party property cases or statutes

Arizona 2 yearsAriz. Rev. Stat. §12-542

6 years Ariz. Rev. Stat.§12-548

3 years Ariz. Rev. Stat. §12-543

12 years after product first sold for use or consumption Ariz. Rev. Stat. §12-551 **

8 years after substantial completionAriz. Rev. Stat. §12-552


Arkansas 3 yearsArk. Code Ann. §16-56-105

or

5 years(property damage caused by deficiency in design, planning, supervision, or observation of construction or deficiency in construction and repair of any improvement to real property)Ark. Code Ann. §16-56-112

5 years Ark. Code Ann. §16-56-111


None 5 years after substantial completionArk. Code Ann. §16-56-112(d)

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law in state holds that “[g]eneral rule is that an insurer is not entitled to subrogation unless the insured has been made whole for his loss.” Riley v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 381 S.W.3d 840 (Ark. 2011)

California 3 yearsCal. Civ. Proc. Code §338

4 years Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §337


None 10 years after substantial completionCal. Civ. Proc. §337.15

Yes absent agreement to the contraryHodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc., 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303 (Cal. App. 2005)

Colorado 2 yearsColo. Rev. Stat. §13-80-102

3 yearsColo. Rev. Stat. §13-80-101


2 yearsnew manufacturing equipmentColo. Rev. Stat. §13-80-107; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102 (after the cause of action accrues)

6 years after substantial completionColo. Rev. Stat. §13-80-104


Connecticut 2 yearsConn. Gen. Stat. §52-584

6 years Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-576


10 years from date last parted with possession or control of product Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-577a

7 years after substantial completionConn. Gen. Stat. §52-584a

YesWaskov v. Manella, 849 A.2d 777 (Conn. 2004)

Delaware 3 years10 Del. Code Ann. §8106

6 years10 Del. Code Ann. §8109


None 6 years after substantial completion10 Del. Code Ann. §8127



3 yearsD.C. Code §12-301



None 10 years after substantial completion (exceptions apply; see statute) D.C. Code §12-310








Alabama 2 yearsAla. Code §6-2-38



Within 10 years after product first put to useAla. Code §6-5-502 *

13 years after substantial completion (exceptions apply; see statute)Ala. Code §6-5-221

Yesabsent agreement to the contrary Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hugh Cole Builder, Inc., 772 So.2d 1145 (Ala. 2000)

Alaska 6 years Alaska Stat. §09.10.050



None 10 years after substantial completion or after last act that allegedly caused injury, death or property damage. Specifically excluded defective products.Alaska Stat. §09.10.055 *


Arizona 2 yearsAriz. Rev. Stat. §12-542

6 years Ariz. Rev. Stat.§12-548

3 years Ariz. Rev. Stat. §12-543

12 years after product first sold for use or consumption Ariz. Rev. Stat. §12-551 **

8 years after substantial completionAriz. Rev. Stat. §12-552


Arkansas 3 yearsArk. Code Ann. §16-56-105

or

5 years(property damage caused by deficiency in design, planning, supervision, or observation of construction or deficiency in construction and repair of any improvement to real property)Ark. Code Ann. §16-56-112



None 5 years after substantial completionArk. Code Ann. §16-56-112(d)

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law in state holds that “[g]eneral rule is that an insurer is not entitled to subrogation unless the insured has been made whole for his loss.” Riley v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 381 S.W.3d 840 (Ark. 2011)

California 3 yearsCal. Civ. Proc. Code §338



None 10 years after substantial completionCal. Civ. Proc. §337.15

Yes absent agreement to the contraryHodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc., 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303 (Cal. App. 2005)

Colorado 2 yearsColo. Rev. Stat. §13-80-102



2 yearsnew manufacturing equipmentColo. Rev. Stat. §13-80-107; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102 (after the cause of action accrues)

6 years after substantial completionColo. Rev. Stat. §13-80-104


Connecticut 2 yearsConn. Gen. Stat. §52-584



10 years from date last parted with possession or control of product Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-577a

7 years after substantial completionConn. Gen. Stat. §52-584a

YesWaskov v. Manella, 849 A.2d 777 (Conn. 2004)

Delaware 3 years10 Del. Code Ann. §8106



None 6 years after substantial completion10 Del. Code Ann. §8127






None 10 years after substantial completion (exceptions apply; see statute) D.C. Code §12-310








Florida 4 yearsFla. Stat. §95.11

5 years Fla. Stat. §95.11


12 years from delivery to original purchaser if product has useful life of 10 years or less (presumed, subject to exceptions). (See statute for additional exceptions.)Fla. Stat. §95.031

10 years after date of actual possession by owner, date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, date of abandonment of construction or termination of contract between professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his employer, whichever date is latest. Fla. Stat. §95.11

Yes Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v Martin, 377 So. 2d 827 (Fla. App. 1979)

Georgia 4 yearsGa. Code Ann. §9-3-30

6 years Ga. Code Ann. §9-3-24


10 years from first sale of productGa. Code Ann. §51-1-11

8 years after substantial completionGa. Code Ann. §9-3-51

NoGeorgia Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Woodcraft by MacDonald, Inc., 726 S.E. 2d 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)

Hawaii 2 years Haw. Rev. Stat. §657-7

6 yearsHaw. Rev. Stat. §657-1


None 10 years after substantial completionHaw. Rev. Stat. §657-8


Idaho 4 yearsdamage to real propertyIdaho Code §5-224 3 yearsdamage to goods or chattelsIdaho Code §5-218

5 years Idaho Code §5-216


10 years after time of deliveryIdaho Code §6-1403

6 years after final completionIdaho Code §5-241


Illinois 5 years735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-205 (subject to 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-214 which may reduce time to 4 years; see statute)

10 years 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-206


10 years from date of sale/delivery to first user or 12 years from 1st sale/delivery by seller, whichever is shorter 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-213 **

10 years from improvement to real property (subject to exceptions; see statute)735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-214

Yesabsent agreement to the contraryCapitol Indem. Corp. v. Strike Zone, 646 N.E.2d 310 (Ill. App. 1995)

Indiana 6 years(real property) Ind. Code §34-11-2-7(2 years for (damage from product liability claim - Ind. Code §34-20-3-1)

10 years Ind. Code §34-11-2-11


10 years after delivery to initial user (subject to exceptions; see statute) Ind. Code §34-20-3-1

10 years after substantial completion or 12 years after completion and submission of plans and specifications if action for deficiency in designInd. Code §32-30-1-5

No first party property cases or statutes,but case law provides that generally “The general rule applicable to actions based on the ground of subrogation is that the right does not exist unless the whole debt has been paid. Maryland Casualty Company of Baltimore v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company 124 N.E. 774 (Ind.App. 1919)

Iowa 5 yearsIowa Code §614.1

10 years Iowa Code §614.1

5 years (not written)Iowa Code §614.1

15 years after first purchased, leased, bailed or installed Iowa Code §614.1

15 years from act or omission of act alleged to have caused the injury or death Iowa Code §614.1

Yes Chickasaw County Farmers’ Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Weller, 98 Iowa 731, 735, 68 N.W. 443, 445 (1896)

Kansas 2 yearsKan. Stat. Ann. §60-513

5 years Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-511


10 years (rebuttable presumption) or after expiration of useful safe life of product under Kansas Product Liability Act. Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-3303

10 years (general statute of repose for tort cases) Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-513








Florida 4 yearsFla. Stat. §95.11



12 years from delivery to original purchaser if product has useful life of 10 years or less (presumed, subject to exceptions). (See statute for additional exceptions.)Fla. Stat. §95.031

10 years after date of actual possession by owner, date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, date of abandonment of construction or termination of contract between professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his employer, whichever date is latest. Fla. Stat. §95.11

Yes Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v Martin, 377 So. 2d 827 (Fla. App. 1979)

Georgia 4 yearsGa. Code Ann. §9-3-30



10 years from first sale of productGa. Code Ann. §51-1-11

8 years after substantial completionGa. Code Ann. §9-3-51

NoGeorgia Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Woodcraft by MacDonald, Inc., 726 S.E. 2d 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)

Hawaii 2 years Haw. Rev. Stat. §657-7



None 10 years after substantial completionHaw. Rev. Stat. §657-8


Idaho 4 yearsdamage to real propertyIdaho Code §5-224 3 yearsdamage to goods or chattelsIdaho Code §5-218



10 years after time of deliveryIdaho Code §6-1403

6 years after final completionIdaho Code §5-241


Illinois 5 years735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-205 (subject to 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-214 which may reduce time to 4 years; see statute)



10 years from date of sale/delivery to first user or 12 years from 1st sale/delivery by seller, whichever is shorter 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-213 **

10 years from improvement to real property (subject to exceptions; see statute)735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-214

Yesabsent agreement to the contraryCapitol Indem. Corp. v. Strike Zone, 646 N.E.2d 310 (Ill. App. 1995)

Indiana 6 years(real property) Ind. Code §34-11-2-7(2 years for (damage from product liability claim - Ind. Code §34-20-3-1)



10 years after delivery to initial user (subject to exceptions; see statute) Ind. Code §34-20-3-1

10 years after substantial completion or 12 years after completion and submission of plans and specifications if action for deficiency in designInd. Code §32-30-1-5

No first party property cases or statutes,but case law provides that generally “The general rule applicable to actions based on the ground of subrogation is that the right does not exist unless the whole debt has been paid. Maryland Casualty Company of Baltimore v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company 124 N.E. 774 (Ind.App. 1919)

Iowa 5 yearsIowa Code §614.1

10 years Iowa Code §614.1

5 years (not written)Iowa Code §614.1

15 years after first purchased, leased, bailed or installed Iowa Code §614.1

15 years from act or omission of act alleged to have caused the injury or death Iowa Code §614.1

Yes Chickasaw County Farmers’ Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Weller, 98 Iowa 731, 735, 68 N.W. 443, 445 (1896)

Kansas 2 yearsKan. Stat. Ann. §60-513



10 years (rebuttable presumption) or after expiration of useful safe life of product under Kansas Product Liability Act. Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-3303

10 years (general statute of repose for tort cases) Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-513








Kentucky 5 years Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §413.120

15 years Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §413.090


5 years after sale; 8 years after manufactureKy. Rev. Stat. Ann. §411.310

7 years after substantial completionKy. Rev. Stat. Ann. §413.135**

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law holds that it has “generally been held that no subrogation rights exist (or the right does not arise) until the insured has first recovered the full amount of loss sustained.” Wine v. Globe American Ca. Co., 917 S.W.2d 558 (Ky. 1996)

Louisiana 1 yearLSA-C.C. Art. 3492

10 yearsLSA-C.C. Art. 3499


None 5 years after owner has taken possessionLSA-R.S. 9:2772

YesNew Orleans Assets, LLC v. Woodward, 363 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2004); Fairgrounds Corp. v. ADT Sec. Systems, 719 So. 2d 1110 (La. App. 1998)

Maine 6 yearsMe. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, §752(4 years for negligence action against architect or engineer - Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, §752-A)

6 yearsMe. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, §752


None 10 years after substantial completion unless valid construction contract provides otherwiseMe. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, §752-A


Maryland 3 yearsMd. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-101

3 yearsMd. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-101


20 years after date entire improvement first becomes available for its intended use, as to certain products used in construction (but see statute for certain exclusions) Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-108

10 years after date entire improvement first becomes available for its intended use (as to architects, professional engineers, contractors), and 20 years as to others based on defective and unsafe conditionMd. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-108

NoStancil v. Erie Ins. Co., 740 A.2d 46 (Md. App. 1999)

Massachusetts 3 years Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §2A and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §2B (design, planning or construction)

6 yearsMass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §2


6 years after earlier of opening or substantial completion and taking possession Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §2B


NoRogers Street, LLC v. American Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2425042 (Mass. Super.)

Michigan 3 yearsMich. Comp. Laws Ann. §600.5805

6 yearsMich. Comp. Laws Ann. §600.5807


None 10 years after time of occupancyMich. Comp. Laws Ann. §600.5839


Minnesota 2 years(improvements to real property)Minn. Stat. §541.051

(6 years for certain claims - See Minn. Stat. §541.05)

6 yearsMinn. Stat. §541.05


None 10 years after substantial completionMinn. Stat. §541.051

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law holds generally that “[a]n insurer may not assert subrogation rights unless its insured has been fully compensated.” Giacomino v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 595 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. App. 1999)

Mississippi 3 yearsMiss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49

3 years Miss. Code Ann. §15-1-49

3 yearsMiss. Code Ann. §15-1-29

None 6 years after written acceptance or actual occupancyMiss. Code Ann. §15-1-41

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law holds “the made whole doctrine”, requires that a plaintiff be made whole, that is, recover all damages, before an insurance carrier is allowed to enforce its contractual right to subrogation.” Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McNeal, 943 So.2d 658 (Miss. 2006)

Missouri 5 yearsMo. Ann. Stat. §516.120

5 years Mo. Ann. Stat. §516.120


None 10 years from completion Mo. Ann. Stat. §516.097

YesTravelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light, 568 F.S. 2d 1040 (W.D. Mo. 2008)







Kentucky 5 years Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §413.120



5 years after sale; 8 years after manufactureKy. Rev. Stat. Ann. §411.310

7 years after substantial completionKy. Rev. Stat. Ann. §413.135**

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law holds that it has “generally been held that no subrogation rights exist (or the right does not arise) until the insured has first recovered the full amount of loss sustained.” Wine v. Globe American Ca. Co., 917 S.W.2d 558 (Ky. 1996)

Louisiana 1 yearLSA-C.C. Art. 3492



None 5 years after owner has taken possessionLSA-R.S. 9:2772

YesNew Orleans Assets, LLC v. Woodward, 363 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2004); Fairgrounds Corp. v. ADT Sec. Systems, 719 So. 2d 1110 (La. App. 1998)

Maine 6 yearsMe. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, §752(4 years for negligence action against architect or engineer - Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, §752-A)



None 10 years after substantial completion unless valid construction contract provides otherwiseMe. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, §752-A


Maryland 3 yearsMd. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-101



20 years after date entire improvement first becomes available for its intended use, as to certain products used in construction (but see statute for certain exclusions) Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-108

10 years after date entire improvement first becomes available for its intended use (as to architects, professional engineers, contractors), and 20 years as to others based on defective and unsafe conditionMd. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-108

NoStancil v. Erie Ins. Co., 740 A.2d 46 (Md. App. 1999)

Massachusetts 3 years Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §2A and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, §2B (design, planning or construction)





NoRogers Street, LLC v. American Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2425042 (Mass. Super.)

Michigan 3 yearsMich. Comp. Laws Ann. §600.5805



None 10 years after time of occupancyMich. Comp. Laws Ann. §600.5839


Minnesota 2 years(improvements to real property)Minn. Stat. §541.051

(6 years for certain claims - See Minn. Stat. §541.05)



None 10 years after substantial completionMinn. Stat. §541.051

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law holds generally that “[a]n insurer may not assert subrogation rights unless its insured has been fully compensated.” Giacomino v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 595 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. App. 1999)

Mississippi 3 yearsMiss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49

3 years Miss. Code Ann. §15-1-49

3 yearsMiss. Code Ann. §15-1-29

None 6 years after written acceptance or actual occupancyMiss. Code Ann. §15-1-41

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law holds “the made whole doctrine”, requires that a plaintiff be made whole, that is, recover all damages, before an insurance carrier is allowed to enforce its contractual right to subrogation.” Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McNeal, 943 So.2d 658 (Miss. 2006)

Missouri 5 yearsMo. Ann. Stat. §516.120



None 10 years from completion Mo. Ann. Stat. §516.097

YesTravelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light, 568 F.S. 2d 1040 (W.D. Mo. 2008)







Montana 2 yearsMont. Code Ann. §27-2-207

8 years Mont. Code Ann. §27-2-202

5 yearsMont. Code Ann. §27-2-202

None 10 years after completion Mont. Code Ann. §27-2-208

YesSkauge v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 565 P.2d 628 (Mont. 1977)

Nebraska 4 yearsNeb. Rev. Stat. §25-207 and §25-223

5 years Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-205


10 years (for products manufactured in Nebraska) after date first sold or leased for use or consumptionNeb. Rev. Stat. §25-224

10 years beyond the time of the act giving rise to the cause of action Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-223

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law has held “[w]here an insurer seeks subrogation and the insured has not been made whole through his or her recovery, equitable principles necessitate disallowing the insurer to assert its subrogation right.” Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska, Inc. v. Dailey, 687 N.W.2d 689 (Neb. 2004)

Nevada 3 yearsNev. Rev. Stat. §11.190

6 years Nev. Rev. Stat. §11.190


None 10 years (known defect); 8 years (latent defect); 6 years (patent defect) after substantial completion Nev. Rev. Stat. §§11.203-11.205


New Hampshire 3 yearsN.H. Rev. Stat. §508:4

3 yearsN.H. Rev. Stat. §508:4


12 years from date product left manufacturer’s control and possession, or it was sold, whichever occurred lastN.H. Rev. Stat. §507-D:2 **

8 years after substantial completion N.H. Rev. Stat. §508:4-b


New Jersey 6 yearsN.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:14-1

6 yearsN.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:14-1


None 10 years after performance or furnishing N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:14-1.1

Yes absent policy language or agreement to the contrary Culver v. Insurance Co. of America, 559 A.2d 400 (N.J. 1989)

New Mexico 4 yearsN.M. Stat. Ann. §37-1-4

6 years N.M. Stat. Ann. §37-1-3


None 10 years after substantial completion N.M. Stat. Ann. §37-1-27


New York 3 years N.Y. C.P.L.R. §214

6 years N.Y. C.P.L.R. §213


None None Yes Winkelmann v. Excelsior Ins. Co., 612 N.Y.S.2d 229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994) (but, insurer can proceed with its subrogation action against 3d party, leaving for later determination the question of adequacy of funds) YesUSF&G v. Maggiore, 749 NYS2d 555 (App. Div. 2002)

North Carolina 3 years N.C.G.S.A. §1-52

3 years N.C.G.S.A. §1-52


6 years from initial purchase of product for use or consumption by end userN.C.G.S.A. §1-50

6 years after specific last act or omission of defendant or substantial completionN.C.G.S.A. §1-50

YesSt. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. W.P. Rose Supply Co., 198 S.E. 2d 482 (N.C. App. 1973)

North Dakota 6 yearsN.D. Cent. Code §28-01-16

6 yearsN.D. Cent. Code §28-01-16


10 years from date of initial purchase for useful consumption or 11 years from date of manufactureN.D. Cent. Code §28-01.3-08**

10 years after substantial completion N.D. Cent. Code §28-01-44


Ohio 4 yearsOhio Rev. Code §2305.09

8 years Ohio Rev. Code §2305.06


10 yearsOhio Rev. Code §2305.10**

10 years after substantial completionOhio Rev. Code §2305.131**

No Ervin v. Garner, 267 N.E. 2d 769 (Ohio 1971); Peterson v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co., 191 N.E.2d 157 (Ohio 1963);







Montana 2 yearsMont. Code Ann. §27-2-207

8 years Mont. Code Ann. §27-2-202

5 yearsMont. Code Ann. §27-2-202

None 10 years after completion Mont. Code Ann. §27-2-208

YesSkauge v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 565 P.2d 628 (Mont. 1977)

Nebraska 4 yearsNeb. Rev. Stat. §25-207 and §25-223



10 years (for products manufactured in Nebraska) after date first sold or leased for use or consumptionNeb. Rev. Stat. §25-224

10 years beyond the time of the act giving rise to the cause of action Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-223

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law has held “[w]here an insurer seeks subrogation and the insured has not been made whole through his or her recovery, equitable principles necessitate disallowing the insurer to assert its subrogation right.” Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska, Inc. v. Dailey, 687 N.W.2d 689 (Neb. 2004)

Nevada 3 yearsNev. Rev. Stat. §11.190



None 10 years (known defect); 8 years (latent defect); 6 years (patent defect) after substantial completion Nev. Rev. Stat. §§11.203-11.205


New Hampshire 3 yearsN.H. Rev. Stat. §508:4



12 years from date product left manufacturer’s control and possession, or it was sold, whichever occurred lastN.H. Rev. Stat. §507-D:2 **

8 years after substantial completion N.H. Rev. Stat. §508:4-b


New Jersey 6 yearsN.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:14-1



None 10 years after performance or furnishing N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:14-1.1

Yes absent policy language or agreement to the contrary Culver v. Insurance Co. of America, 559 A.2d 400 (N.J. 1989)

New Mexico 4 yearsN.M. Stat. Ann. §37-1-4



None 10 years after substantial completion N.M. Stat. Ann. §37-1-27


New York 3 years N.Y. C.P.L.R. §214



None None Yes Winkelmann v. Excelsior Ins. Co., 612 N.Y.S.2d 229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994) (but, insurer can proceed with its subrogation action against 3d party, leaving for later determination the question of adequacy of funds) YesUSF&G v. Maggiore, 749 NYS2d 555 (App. Div. 2002)

North Carolina 3 years N.C.G.S.A. §1-52



6 years from initial purchase of product for use or consumption by end userN.C.G.S.A. §1-50

6 years after specific last act or omission of defendant or substantial completionN.C.G.S.A. §1-50

YesSt. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. W.P. Rose Supply Co., 198 S.E. 2d 482 (N.C. App. 1973)

North Dakota 6 yearsN.D. Cent. Code §28-01-16



10 years from date of initial purchase for useful consumption or 11 years from date of manufactureN.D. Cent. Code §28-01.3-08**

10 years after substantial completion N.D. Cent. Code §28-01-44


Ohio 4 yearsOhio Rev. Code §2305.09



10 yearsOhio Rev. Code §2305.10**

10 years after substantial completionOhio Rev. Code §2305.131**

No Ervin v. Garner, 267 N.E. 2d 769 (Ohio 1971); Peterson v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co., 191 N.E.2d 157 (Ohio 1963);







Oklahoma 2 yearsOkla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §95

5 years Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §95


None 10 years from substantial completion of improvementOkla Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §109

No first party property cases or statutes, but other insurance case law has held that “[an] insurance contract stands subject to the make-whole rule unless it contains an unequivocal, express statement that the insured does not have to be made whole before the insurer is entitled to recoup its payments.” Manokoune v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 145 P.3d 1081 (Ok. 2006)

Oregon 2 years(improvement to real property)Or. Rev. Stat. §12.135 (damage from a product)Or. Rev. Stat. §30.905otherwise 6 yearsOr. Rev. Stat. §12.080

6 yearsOr. Rev. Stat. §12.080


10 years from date first purchased (subject to limitations - see statute as amended 2009)Or. Rev. Stat. §30.905

Earlier of statute of limitations or 10 years from substantial completion of small commercial structure, residential strucutre, or certain large commercial structures

6 years after substantial completion of large commercial structure (subject to limitations - see statute as amended 2013)Or. Rev. Stat. §12.135


Pennsylvania 2 years42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §5524

6 years 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §5527


None

12 years from completion 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann §5536

YesUnited Nat’l Ins. Co. v. M. London, Inc., 1992 WL 1071363 (Pa. Comm. Pl.)

Rhode Island 10 yearsR.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-13

10 yearsR.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-13

1 yearR.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-14

10 years after first purchased for use /consumptionR.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-13**

10 years from substantial completion R.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-29


South Carolina 3 yearsS.C. Code Ann. §15-3-530

3 yearsS.C. Code Ann. §15-3-530


None 8 years from substantial completion S.C. Code Ann. §15-3-640(13 years for improvements for which certificate of occupancy or completion of final inspection prior to July 1, 2005)


South Dakota 6 yearsS.D. Codified Laws §15-2-13

6 yearsS.D. Codified Laws §15-2-13


None 10 years from substantial completion S.D. Codified Laws §15-2A-1

Yes but insurer can proceed in situations where the tortfeasor has sufficient funds to cover all claimsJulson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 562 N.W.2d 117 (S.D. 1997)

Tennessee 3 yearTenn. Code Ann. §28-3-105

6 yearsTenn. Code Ann. §28-3-109


10 years from date of first purchase or one year from expiration of useful life, whichever is shorterTenn. Code Ann. §29-28-103

4 years after substantial completionTenn. Code Ann. §28-3-202

YesWimberly v. American Cas. Co., 584 S.W.2d 200 (Tenn. 1979)

Texas

2 yearsTex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code Ann. §16.003

4 years Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code Ann. §16.004


15 years from date of sale Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code §16.012**

10 years from substantial completion Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code §16.008 and §16.009

Yesabsent agreement to the contraryOsborne v. Jauregui, Inc., 225 S.W. 3d 70 (Tex. App. 2008)







Oklahoma 2 yearsOkla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §95



None 10 years from substantial completion of improvementOkla Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §109

No first party property cases or statutes, but other insurance case law has held that “[an] insurance contract stands subject to the make-whole rule unless it contains an unequivocal, express statement that the insured does not have to be made whole before the insurer is entitled to recoup its payments.” Manokoune v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 145 P.3d 1081 (Ok. 2006)

Oregon 2 years(improvement to real property)Or. Rev. Stat. §12.135 (damage from a product)Or. Rev. Stat. §30.905otherwise 6 yearsOr. Rev. Stat. §12.080



10 years from date first purchased (subject to limitations - see statute as amended 2009)Or. Rev. Stat. §30.905

Earlier of statute of limitations or 10 years from substantial completion of small commercial structure, residential strucutre, or certain large commercial structures

6 years after substantial completion of large commercial structure (subject to limitations - see statute as amended 2013)Or. Rev. Stat. §12.135


Pennsylvania 2 years42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §5524



None

12 years from completion 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann §5536

YesUnited Nat’l Ins. Co. v. M. London, Inc., 1992 WL 1071363 (Pa. Comm. Pl.)

Rhode Island 10 yearsR.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-13

10 yearsR.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-13

1 yearR.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-14

10 years after first purchased for use /consumptionR.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-13**

10 years from substantial completion R.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-29


South Carolina 3 yearsS.C. Code Ann. §15-3-530



None 8 years from substantial completion S.C. Code Ann. §15-3-640(13 years for improvements for which certificate of occupancy or completion of final inspection prior to July 1, 2005)


South Dakota 6 yearsS.D. Codified Laws §15-2-13



None 10 years from substantial completion S.D. Codified Laws §15-2A-1

Yes but insurer can proceed in situations where the tortfeasor has sufficient funds to cover all claimsJulson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 562 N.W.2d 117 (S.D. 1997)

Tennessee 3 yearTenn. Code Ann. §28-3-105



10 years from date of first purchase or one year from expiration of useful life, whichever is shorterTenn. Code Ann. §29-28-103

4 years after substantial completionTenn. Code Ann. §28-3-202

YesWimberly v. American Cas. Co., 584 S.W.2d 200 (Tenn. 1979)

Texas

2 yearsTex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code Ann. §16.003



15 years from date of sale Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code §16.012**

10 years from substantial completion Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code §16.008 and §16.009

Yesabsent agreement to the contraryOsborne v. Jauregui, Inc., 225 S.W. 3d 70 (Tex. App. 2008)







Utah 3 yearsUtah Code Ann. §78B-2-305

6 years Utah Code Ann. §78B-2-309


None 9 years from completion of improvement or abandonment of construction Utah Code Ann. §78B-2-225

Yessubject to agreement to the contraryBirch v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 122 P.3d 696 (Utah App. 2005)

Vermont 6 yearsVt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §511

6 yearsVt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §511


None None No first party property cases or statutes

Virginia 2 yearsVa. Code Ann. §8.01-243

5 years Va. Code Ann. §8.01-246


None 5 years after performance or furnishingVa. Code Ann. §8.01-250

YesSchwarz & Schwarz of Va., L..L.C. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2009 WL 2882034 (W.D. Va. 2009)

Washington 3 yearsWash Rev. Code §4.16.080

6 years Wash. Rev. Code §4.16.040


12 year presumption of useful life of productWash Rev. Code §7.72.060

6 years from substantial completion or termination of servicesWash. Rev. Code §4.16.310

YesSee Bordeaux, Inc. v. American Safety Ins. Co., 186 P.3d 1188 (Wash App. 2008)

West Virginia 2 yearsW. Va. Code §55-2-12

10 years W. Va. Code §55-2-6


None 10 years after performance or furnishing W. Va. Code §55-2-6a

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law has held that “an insured must be fully compensated for injuries or losses sustained (made whole) before the subrogation rights of an insurance carrier arise.” Kanawha Valley Radiologists, Inc. v. One Valley Bank, N.A, 557 S.E.2d 277 (W.Va. Ct. App. 2001)

Wisconsin 6 yearsWis. Stat. §893.52

6 yearsWis. Stat. §893.43


None 10 years after substantial completion Wis. Stat. §893.89

Yes subject to limitations Muller v. Society Ins. Co., 750 N.W. 2d 1 (Wis. 2008)

Wyoming 4 yearsWyo. Stat. Ann. §1-3-105

10 years Wyo. Stat. Ann. §1-3-105


None 10 years from substantial completionWyo. Stat. Ann. §1-3-111


** Indicates portion(s) of statute of repose has/have been held unconstitutional or validity called into doubt.







Utah 3 yearsUtah Code Ann. §78B-2-305



None 9 years from completion of improvement or abandonment of construction Utah Code Ann. §78B-2-225

Yessubject to agreement to the contraryBirch v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 122 P.3d 696 (Utah App. 2005)

Vermont 6 yearsVt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §511



None None No first party property cases or statutes

Virginia 2 yearsVa. Code Ann. §8.01-243



None 5 years after performance or furnishingVa. Code Ann. §8.01-250

YesSchwarz & Schwarz of Va., L..L.C. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2009 WL 2882034 (W.D. Va. 2009)

Washington 3 yearsWash Rev. Code §4.16.080



12 year presumption of useful life of productWash Rev. Code §7.72.060

6 years from substantial completion or termination of servicesWash. Rev. Code §4.16.310

YesSee Bordeaux, Inc. v. American Safety Ins. Co., 186 P.3d 1188 (Wash App. 2008)

West Virginia 2 yearsW. Va. Code §55-2-12



None 10 years after performance or furnishing W. Va. Code §55-2-6a

No first party property cases or statutes, but insurance case law has held that “an insured must be fully compensated for injuries or losses sustained (made whole) before the subrogation rights of an insurance carrier arise.” Kanawha Valley Radiologists, Inc. v. One Valley Bank, N.A, 557 S.E.2d 277 (W.Va. Ct. App. 2001)

Wisconsin 6 yearsWis. Stat. §893.52



None 10 years after substantial completion Wis. Stat. §893.89

Yes subject to limitations Muller v. Society Ins. Co., 750 N.W. 2d 1 (Wis. 2008)

Wyoming 4 yearsWyo. Stat. Ann. §1-3-105



None 10 years from substantial completionWyo. Stat. Ann. §1-3-111


** Indicates portion(s) of statute of repose has/have been held unconstitutional or validity called into doubt.


Building Related Codes

Codes are the rules and regulations that govern the design, construction, maintenance and restoration of our constructed environment. Because codes exist for nearly every facet of construction, the following information has been limited to those codes that focus on habitable buildings and their related structures commonly referred to as “building codes”. The nationally recognized building codes often referred to as the “base codes” include; the I-Codes published by the International Code Council (ICC), the Life Safety code and electric code published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the ADAAG published by the United States Access Board (USAB).

It should be noted that in some states, , the base codes are simply approved for use at the state level leaving both their adoption and enforcement up to the local municipalities. While in other states, the base codes are adopted and then mandated at a state level leaving only enforcement up to the local municipalities. Recently, some States have taken to adopting the base codes, modifying them to meet specific regional concerns and then issuing them as a “State code” leaving only enforcement up to the local municipalities.

The matrix on the pages that follow provides an overview of building codes that exist throughout the US. The matrix is constructed such that the states are listed in alphabetical order down the first column with each of the major building related codes listed across the top row. A brief description of the applicable code, and when applicable its base code along with any possible exceptions, is outlined below.

When navigating this table, the user is encouraged to review the information found within the second column, the “MANDATED or APPROVED” column. This column contains information on whether the codes are mandated at a state level or simply approved at the state level and then left up to the local municipality.

Given that building codes are constantly being updated and revised, it is recommended that the user consult with the local municipality to confirm applicable requirements pertaining to design, construction, maintenance, repair and/or restoration.


International Building Code:The provisions of the IBC code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

Possible Exceptions: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (town houses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code if it is enforced.

Existing building undergoing repair, alterations, or additions and change of occupancy shall be permitted to comply with the International Existing Building Code if it is enforced.

International Residential Code:The provisions of the International Residential Code for one- and two-family dwellings applies to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures.

Possible Exception: Existing buildings undergoing repair, alteration, or additions, and change of occupancy shall be permitted to comply with the International Existing Building Code if it is enforced.

International Existing Building Code:The provisions of the International Existing Building Code apply to the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition and relocation of existing building.

International Electrical Code: (From the NEC)This Code covers the installation of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for public and private premises, yards, lots, parking lots, carnivals, and industrial substations.

International Mechanical Code:This code regulates the design, installation, maintenance, alteration and inspection of mechanical systems that are permanently installed and utilized to provide control of environmental conditions and related processes within buildings.

Possible Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories high with separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code if it is enforced.

International Plumbing Code:The provisions of this code apply to the erection, installation, alteration, repairs, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or maintenance of plumbing systems within this jurisdiction. This code also regulates nonflammable medical gas, inhalation anesthetic, vacuum piping, nonmedical oxygen systems and sanitary and condensate vacuum collection systems.

Possible Exceptions: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories high with separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code if it is enforced.

International Fuel/Gas Code: This code applies to the installation of fuel gas piping systems, fuel gas utilization equipment, gaseous hydrogen systems and related accessories.

Possible Exceptions: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories high with separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code if it is enforced.


International Energy Efficiency Code: This code applies to residential and commercial buildings.

Accessibility: (From the ADAAG)This document contains scoping and technical requirements for accessibility to buildings and facilities by individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. These scoping and technical requirements are to be applied during the design, construction, and alteration of buildings and facilities covered by titles II and III of the ADA to the extent required by regulations issued by Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, under the ADA.

Fire/Life Safety: (From the NFPA 101)This code establishes regulations affecting or relating to structures, processes, premises and safeguards regarding:

1. The hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices;2. Conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises;3. Fire hazards in the structure or on the premises from occupancy or operation;4. Matters related to the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of fire suppression or alarm systems.

Property Maintenance Code:The provisions of this code apply to all existing residential and nonresidential structures and all existing premises and constitute minimum requirements and standards for premises, structures, equipment and facilities for light, ventilation, space, heating, sanitation, protection from the elements, life safety, safety from fire and other hazards, and for safe and sanitary maintenance; the responsibility of owners, operators and occupants; the occupancy of existing structures and premises, and for administration, enforcement and penalties.


Building Codes in Effect by State Building Codes in Effect by StateState State Mandated

or ApprovedBuildings Residential Existing

BuildingsElectrical Mechanical Plumbing Fuel/Gas Energy

EfficiencyAccessibility Life Safety Fire Property

MaintenanceAlabama(AL)

The only statemandatory code is Life Safety. Only state buildings, schools, hotels, and movie theaters are mandated for the remaining codes

State Alabama StateBuilding Code

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code

2009 InternationalResidential Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code(Chapter 34)

2011 NationalElectrical Code

2009 International Mechanical Code

2009 International Plumbing Code

2009 International Fuel Gas Code

2009 International Energy Conservation Code

2010 ADA Accessibility Guidelines

2009 InternationalFire Code


Alaska(AK)

State Mandatedexcept for 1, 2, or 3family dwellings, and energy efficiency,

State AlaskaAdministrativeCode, Title 8, Ch.70

AlaskaAdministrativeCode Title 8, Ch.63


Alaska BuildingEnergy EfficiencyStandards –APPROVEDCODE

Alaska Title 13 ch 50-55

Base Code




2009 InternationalMechanical Code

2009 UniformPlumbing Code

2009 InternationalFuel Gas Code

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (IECC),ASHRAE 62.22010 (and AlaskaSpecificAmendments to both)

2010 ADAAccessibilityGuidelines



Arizona(AZ)

Arizona is a Home-Rule state, in which codes are adopted and enforced ata local level. State Fire Code is used ifmunicipality has notadopted own code

State State Code forManufacturedMobile homes

Arizona State FireCode Title 41 ch. 16

Base Code


Arkansas(AR)

State Mandated by Fire Code looking to adopt 2012 ICC

State 2007 ArkansasFire PreventionCode

2007 ArkansasFire PreventionCode


2007 ArkansasNational ElectricalCode

2010 ArkansasMechanical Code

2006 ArkansasPlumbing Code

2006 ArkansasFuel Gas Code

2006 ArkansasEnergyConservationCode



Base Code

2006 InternationalBuilding Code(with stateamendments) vol. 2


2006 InternationalBuilding Code(with stateamendments)vol. 2

2009 InternationalMechanical Code(with stateamendments)

2006 InternationalPlumbing Code(with stateamendments)

2006 InternationalFuel Gas Code(with stateamendments)

2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (with stateamendments)

2006 ICC/ANSI A117.1

2006 InternationalFire Code vol. 1







MaintenanceAlabama(AL)

The only statemandatory code is Life Safety. Only state buildings, schools, hotels, and movie theaters are mandated for the remaining codes

State Alabama StateBuilding Code

Base Code





2009 International Mechanical Code

2009 International Plumbing Code

2009 International Fuel Gas Code

2009 International Energy Conservation Code

2010 ADA Accessibility Guidelines



Alaska(AK)

State Mandatedexcept for 1, 2, or 3family dwellings, and energy efficiency,

State AlaskaAdministrativeCode, Title 8, Ch.70



Alaska BuildingEnergy EfficiencyStandards –APPROVEDCODE

Alaska Title 13 ch 50-55

Base Code







2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (IECC),ASHRAE 62.22010 (and AlaskaSpecificAmendments to both)

2010 ADAAccessibilityGuidelines



Arizona(AZ)

Arizona is a Home-Rule state, in which codes are adopted and enforced ata local level. State Fire Code is used ifmunicipality has notadopted own code

State State Code forManufacturedMobile homes

Arizona State FireCode Title 41 ch. 16

Base Code


Arkansas(AR)

State Mandated by Fire Code looking to adopt 2012 ICC

State 2007 ArkansasFire PreventionCode



2007 ArkansasNational ElectricalCode

2010 ArkansasMechanical Code

2006 ArkansasPlumbing Code

2006 ArkansasFuel Gas Code

2006 ArkansasEnergyConservationCode



Base Code



2006 InternationalBuilding Code(with stateamendments)vol. 2


2006 InternationalPlumbing Code(with stateamendments)


2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (with stateamendments)

2006 ICC/ANSI A117.1








MaintenanceCalifornia(CA)

State Mandated State 2010 CaliforniaBuilding Code

2010 CaliforniaBuilding Code


2010 CaliforniaElectrical Code

2010 CaliforniaMechanical Code

2010 CaliforniaPlumbing Code

2010 CaliforniaEnergy Code, Title 24, Part 6

2010 CaliforniaBuilding Code,Title 24, Part 2

2010 CaliforniaFire Code


Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code(with stateamendments)

2009 InternationalResidential Code(with stateamendments)

2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (with stateamendments)

2008 NationalElectrical Code(with stateamendments)

2009 UniformMechanical Code(with stateamendments)

2009 UniformPlumbing Code(with stateamendments)



Colorado(CO)

Codes adopted at local levels unless the building is a state building or public

State

Base Code




2009 InternationalPlumbing Code


2012 InternationalEnergyConservationCode

2003 ICC/ANSIA117.1

2006 NFPA 1

2006 NFPA 101

Connecticut(CT)

State Mandated now looking to adopt new in2015

State 2005 ConnecticutState BuildingCode (2005ConnecticutSupplement; 2009Amendment)

2005 ConnecticutState BuildingCode (2005ConnecticutSupplement; 2009Amendment)





CT state reg29-32929-33029-331

2009 ConnecticutState EnergyCode (2011Amendment)

2005 ConnecticutState BuildingCode (2005ConnecticutSupplement; 2009Amendment

Base Code


2009 InternationalResidential Code 2013 amendment

2003 InternationalExisting BuildingCode

2011 NationalElectrical CodeNFPA 70-20112013 amendment



1995 NFPA 54 2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withConnecticutamendments)

ICC/ANSI A117.1- 2003

2003 InternationalFire Code - 2003NFPA 101

2003 InternationalFire Code - 2003NFPA 101 with 2009Amendments

Delaware(DE)

Building codes areadopted by the counties in Delaware, only some codes are State Mandated, as listed

State State FirePreventionRegulation

State FirePreventionRegulations

State FirePreventionRegulations -DelawareArchitecturalAccessibilityStandards



Base Code


2009 NFPA 54 2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode

ANSI A117.1 2012 NFPA 101

2009 NFPA 1






MaintenanceCalifornia(CA)

State Mandated State 2010 CaliforniaBuilding Code



2010 CaliforniaElectrical Code

2010 CaliforniaMechanical Code

2010 CaliforniaPlumbing Code

2010 CaliforniaEnergy Code, Title 24, Part 6

2010 CaliforniaBuilding Code,Title 24, Part 2



Base Code





2009 UniformMechanical Code(with stateamendments)

2009 UniformPlumbing Code(with stateamendments)



Colorado(CO)

Codes adopted at local levels unless the building is a state building or public

State

Base Code







2003 ICC/ANSIA117.1

2006 NFPA 1

2006 NFPA 101

Connecticut(CT)

State Mandated now looking to adopt new in2015

State 2005 ConnecticutState BuildingCode (2005ConnecticutSupplement; 2009Amendment)






CT state reg29-32929-33029-331

2009 ConnecticutState EnergyCode (2011Amendment)

2005 ConnecticutState BuildingCode (2005ConnecticutSupplement; 2009Amendment

Base Code


2009 InternationalResidential Code 2013 amendment


2011 NationalElectrical CodeNFPA 70-20112013 amendment



1995 NFPA 54 2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withConnecticutamendments)

ICC/ANSI A117.1- 2003

2003 InternationalFire Code - 2003NFPA 101

2003 InternationalFire Code - 2003NFPA 101 with 2009Amendments

Delaware(DE)

Building codes areadopted by the counties in Delaware, only some codes are State Mandated, as listed

State State FirePreventionRegulation


State FirePreventionRegulations -DelawareArchitecturalAccessibilityStandards



Base Code



ANSI A117.1 2012 NFPA 101

2009 NFPA 1






MaintenanceDistrict of Columbia(DC)

State Mandated, working on proposed adoption of 2012 ICC codes

State 12A DCMRBuilding CodeSupplement

12B DCMRResidential CodeSupplement

12J DCMRExisting BuildingCode Supplement

12C DCMRElectrical CodeSupplement

12E DCMRMechanical CodeSupplement

12F DCMRPlumbing CodeSupplement

12D DCMR FuelGas CodeSupplement

12I DCMR EnergyConservationCode Supplement

Chapter 11A DCConstructionCodes 2008Supplement

12H DCMR FirePrevention CodeSupplement


12G DCMRPropertyMaintenance CodeSupplement

Base Code

2006 InternationalBuilding Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalResidential Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (withConstruction CodeSupplement)

2005 NationalElectrical Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalMechanical Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalPlumbing Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalFuel Gas Codewith ConstructionCode Supplement

2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withConstruction CodeSupplement)

2006 InternationalFire Code (withConstruction CodeSupplement)


2006 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

Florida(FL)

State Mandated State 2010 FloridaBuilding Code

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeResidential

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeExisting Building

2005 National Electrical Code /NFPA 70

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeMechanical

2010 FloridaBuilding CodePlumbing

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeFuel Gas

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeEnergy Efficiency

2012 FloridaAccessibility Code

2010 Florida FirePrevention Code


2010 FloridaBuilding CodePropertyMaintenance

Base Code









2010 ADAStandards for Accessible Design

2009 NFPA 101

2009 NFPA 1

2009 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code

Georgia(GA)

LOOK FOR CHANGEON Jan. 1, 2014

The building, one and two family dwelling, fire, plumbing, mechanical, gas, electrical and energy codes are StateMandated codes.

State Georgia MinimumStandard BuildingCode

Georgia StateMinimum StandardOne and TwoFamily DwellingCode

Georgia StateMinimum StandardElectrical Code

Georgia StateMinimum StandardMechanical Code

Georgia StateMinimum StandardPlumbing Code

Georgia StateMinimum StandardGas Code

Georgia StateMinimum StandardEnergy Code

Georgia AccessLaw, Chapter 120-3-20

Georgia StateMinimum StandardFire Code


Base Code

2006 InternationalBuilding Code(with 2007, 2009,2010 StateAmendments)2012 IBC 1/1/14

2006 InternationalResidential Code(with 2007, 2008,2009, 2010, 2011,2012, 2013 StateAmendments)2012 IRC 1/1/14

2006 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (with 2009StateAmendments)optional


2006 InternationalMechanical Code(with 2007, 2008,2010, 2011, 2012 StateAmendments)2012 IMC 1/1/14

2006 InternationalPlumbing Code(with 2007, 2008,2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 StateAmendments)2012 IPC 1/1/14

2006 InternationalFuel Gas Code(with 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 StateAmendments)2012 IFGC 1/1/14

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (with 2011, 2012 StateSupplements andAmendments)

ADA AccessibilityGuidelines

2006 InternationalFire Code (with 2007 and 2010 StateAmendments)2012 IFC 1/1/14


2009 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code (with 2009 StateAmendments)optional






MaintenanceDistrict of Columbia(DC)

State Mandated, working on proposed adoption of 2012 ICC codes

State 12A DCMRBuilding CodeSupplement

12B DCMRResidential CodeSupplement

12J DCMRExisting BuildingCode Supplement

12C DCMRElectrical CodeSupplement

12E DCMRMechanical CodeSupplement

12F DCMRPlumbing CodeSupplement

12D DCMR FuelGas CodeSupplement

12I DCMR EnergyConservationCode Supplement

Chapter 11A DCConstructionCodes 2008Supplement



12G DCMRPropertyMaintenance CodeSupplement

Base Code

2006 InternationalBuilding Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalResidential Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (withConstruction CodeSupplement)

2005 NationalElectrical Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalMechanical Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalPlumbing Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

2006 InternationalFuel Gas Codewith ConstructionCode Supplement

2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withConstruction CodeSupplement)



2006 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code(with ConstructionCode Supplement)

Florida(FL)

State Mandated State 2010 FloridaBuilding Code

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeResidential

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeExisting Building

2005 National Electrical Code /NFPA 70

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeMechanical

2010 FloridaBuilding CodePlumbing

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeFuel Gas

2010 FloridaBuilding CodeEnergy Efficiency

2012 FloridaAccessibility Code



2010 FloridaBuilding CodePropertyMaintenance

Base Code









2010 ADAStandards for Accessible Design

2009 NFPA 101

2009 NFPA 1


Georgia(GA)

LOOK FOR CHANGEON Jan. 1, 2014

The building, one and two family dwelling, fire, plumbing, mechanical, gas, electrical and energy codes are StateMandated codes.

State Georgia MinimumStandard BuildingCode

Georgia StateMinimum StandardOne and TwoFamily DwellingCode

Georgia StateMinimum StandardElectrical Code

Georgia StateMinimum StandardMechanical Code

Georgia StateMinimum StandardPlumbing Code

Georgia StateMinimum StandardGas Code

Georgia StateMinimum StandardEnergy Code

Georgia AccessLaw, Chapter 120-3-20



Base Code

2006 InternationalBuilding Code(with 2007, 2009,2010 StateAmendments)2012 IBC 1/1/14

2006 InternationalResidential Code(with 2007, 2008,2009, 2010, 2011,2012, 2013 StateAmendments)2012 IRC 1/1/14

2006 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (with 2009StateAmendments)optional


2006 InternationalMechanical Code(with 2007, 2008,2010, 2011, 2012 StateAmendments)2012 IMC 1/1/14

2006 InternationalPlumbing Code(with 2007, 2008,2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 StateAmendments)2012 IPC 1/1/14

2006 InternationalFuel Gas Code(with 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 StateAmendments)2012 IFGC 1/1/14

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (with 2011, 2012 StateSupplements andAmendments)




2009 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code (with 2009 StateAmendments)optional






MaintenanceHawaii(HI)

The Four Countyjurisdictions have twoyears in which to adoptand amend the StateCode with localamendments. If thecounty jurisdictions donot comply within the two-year time line then the State Code becomes the county’s code until such time the county passes an adopting ordinance.

State

Base Code

2006 InternationalBuilding Code(MANDATED)

2006 InternationalResidential Code(APPROVED)

2006 InternationalExisting BuildingCode(APPROVED)

2008 NationalElectrical Code(MANDATED)

2006 InternationalMechanical Code (APPROVED)

2006 UniformPlumbing Code(subject to 2010 StateAmendments)(MANDATED)

2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode(MANDATED)


2006 Uniform Fire Code(APPROVED)


Idaho(ID)

Codes adopted at locallevels except for stateowned building andpublic schools, modularand manufacturedhomes.

State IDAPA 07.03.01 07.03.01 07.03.01 07.01.06 07.07.01 07.02.06 07.07.01 07.03.01 18.01.50 Idaho fire prevention code

Base Code









2006 ICC/ANSIA117.1

Fire safety2009 InternationalFire Code


Illinois(IL)

Some codes are StateMandated if any areahas not adopted localcodes. Commercial isany building other thansingle family or two orless units. The IllinoisState Board of Education has adoptedthe 2009 IBC, IFC, IMC, IFGC, IPMC, IECC, IEBC for Pre-K through 12 public Education Facilities (except Chicago).

State 2012 IllinoisEnergyConservationCode

IllinoisAccessibility Code

Base Code

(Commercial)2006 InternationalBuilding Code

(Commercial)2006 InternationalExisting BuildingCode




2000 NFPA 101

2000 NFPA 101

2006 InternationalProperty Code






MaintenanceHawaii(HI)

The Four Countyjurisdictions have twoyears in which to adoptand amend the StateCode with localamendments. If thecounty jurisdictions donot comply within the two-year time line then the State Code becomes the county’s code until such time the county passes an adopting ordinance.

State

Base Code

2006 InternationalBuilding Code(MANDATED)

2006 InternationalResidential Code(APPROVED)

2006 InternationalExisting BuildingCode(APPROVED)

2008 NationalElectrical Code(MANDATED)

2006 InternationalMechanical Code (APPROVED)

2006 UniformPlumbing Code(subject to 2010 StateAmendments)(MANDATED)

2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode(MANDATED)




Idaho(ID)

Codes adopted at locallevels except for stateowned building andpublic schools, modularand manufacturedhomes.

State IDAPA 07.03.01 07.03.01 07.03.01 07.01.06 07.07.01 07.02.06 07.07.01 07.03.01 18.01.50 Idaho fire prevention code

Base Code









2006 ICC/ANSIA117.1



Illinois(IL)

Some codes are StateMandated if any areahas not adopted localcodes. Commercial isany building other thansingle family or two orless units. The IllinoisState Board of Education has adoptedthe 2009 IBC, IFC, IMC, IFGC, IPMC, IECC, IEBC for Pre-K through 12 public Education Facilities (except Chicago).

State 2012 IllinoisEnergyConservationCode

IllinoisAccessibility Code

Base Code

(Commercial)2006 InternationalBuilding Code

(Commercial)2006 InternationalExisting BuildingCode




2000 NFPA 101

2000 NFPA 101

2006 InternationalProperty Code






MaintenanceIndiana(IN)

State Mandated State 2008 IndianaBuilding Code

2005 IndianaResidential Code

2008 IndianaBuilding Code

2009 IndianaElectrical Code675IAC 17

2008 IndianaMechanical Code 675 IAC 18

1999 IndianaPlumbing Code 675 IAC 16

2008 Indiana Fuel Gas Code IAC 25

FuelGas Code IAC 252010 IndianaEnergyConservationCode


2008 Indiana Fire Code IAC 22

2008 Indiana Fire Code

Must bemaintained in compliance with rules of thecommission or itspredecessor. 675IAC 12-4-9

Base Code






1997 UniformPlumbing Code(with stateamendments)/1998 AmericanSociety of SanitaryEngineersStandard 1051


ASHRAE 90.1,2007 (with stateamendments)

2006 InternationalFire Code (with stateamendments)


Iowa(IA)

Local adoption of statecode. The 2009 IFC isState Mandated for all Iowa Buildings.

State 661 IowaAdministrativeCode

661 IowaAdministrativeCode


661 IowaAdministrativeCode, Chapter 301

661 IowaAdministrativeCode, Chapter301





International Fire Code 2009 (governs ALL IowaBuildings)


Base Code






2009 UniformPlumbing Code (with stateamendments)


Kansas(KS)

The only State Mandated code is the 2009 IECC and Firecode. The state does not mandate the remaining codes unless it is a state building.

State Kansas fireprevention code

Fire Preventioncode

Fire Preventioncode

Fire Preventioncode

Kansas FirePrevention Code

Base Code







2002 NFPA 54 2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (governsALL buildings)


NFPA 101-2006IFC 2006IBC 2006UBC 1997Mandated Statewide


Kentucky(KY)

State Mandatednew code 1/1/14

State 2013 KentuckyBuilding Code

2013 KentuckyResidential Code

2013 KentuckyBuilding Code

KRS 227815 KAR 35:015


Kentucky StatePlumbing Code


2009 IECC withKentuckyamendments


KentuckyBuilding Code


Base Code



2012 InternationalBuilding Code(chapter 34)

2011 NationalElectrical Code - NFPA 70 (with stateamendments)

2012 InternationalMechanical Code -2006 NFPA 54

International Fuel Gas Code (with stateamendments)2009 NFPA 54

InternationalEnergyConservationCode

Chapter 11 International Fire Code asreferenced in IBC

International Fire Code asreferenced in IBC






MaintenanceIndiana(IN)

State Mandated State 2008 IndianaBuilding Code

2005 IndianaResidential Code


2009 IndianaElectrical Code675IAC 17

2008 IndianaMechanical Code 675 IAC 18

1999 IndianaPlumbing Code 675 IAC 16

2008 Indiana Fuel Gas Code IAC 25

FuelGas Code IAC 252010 IndianaEnergyConservationCode


2008 Indiana Fire Code IAC 22

2008 Indiana Fire Code

Must bemaintained in compliance with rules of thecommission or itspredecessor. 675IAC 12-4-9

Base Code






1997 UniformPlumbing Code(with stateamendments)/1998 AmericanSociety of SanitaryEngineersStandard 1051


ASHRAE 90.1,2007 (with stateamendments)



Iowa(IA)

Local adoption of statecode. The 2009 IFC isState Mandated for all Iowa Buildings.

State 661 IowaAdministrativeCode



661 IowaAdministrativeCode, Chapter 301








Base Code






2009 UniformPlumbing Code (with stateamendments)


Kansas(KS)

The only State Mandated code is the 2009 IECC and Firecode. The state does not mandate the remaining codes unless it is a state building.

State Kansas fireprevention code

Fire Preventioncode

Fire Preventioncode

Fire Preventioncode

Kansas FirePrevention Code

Base Code







2002 NFPA 54 2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (governsALL buildings)




Kentucky(KY)

State Mandatednew code 1/1/14

State 2013 KentuckyBuilding Code

2013 KentuckyResidential Code


KRS 227815 KAR 35:015


Kentucky StatePlumbing Code


2009 IECC withKentuckyamendments




Base Code



2012 InternationalBuilding Code(chapter 34)

2011 NationalElectrical Code - NFPA 70 (with stateamendments)

2012 InternationalMechanical Code -2006 NFPA 54

International Fuel Gas Code (with stateamendments)2009 NFPA 54

InternationalEnergyConservationCode

Chapter 11 International Fire Code asreferenced in IBC

International Fire Code asreferenced in IBC






MaintenanceLouisiana(LA)

State Mandated State Louisana statebuilding code

2013 Louisiana State PlumbingCode

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code,(Excluding Ch. 1,11,27,29)


2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (Excluding Ch. 1)






2009 NFPA 101

2009 NFPA 1

Maine(ME)

State Mandated

Communities over 4,000, (under 4000 do not need to enforce)

Select codes that are approved as noted.

State Maine UniformBuilding andEnergy Code(MUBEC)

Base Code




2008 NationalElectrical Code(APPROVED)

2009 InternationalMechanical Code(APPROVED)

2009 UniformPlumbing Code(APPROVED)

2009 NFPA 54

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode - 2007ASHRAE 70.1


2009 NFPA 101

2009 NFPA 1

Maryland(MD)

Approved, adopted at local level.

State Mandated forIndustrial Buildings.

Subdivisions must adopt

State Maryland BuildingPerformanceStandards

Maryland BuildingPerformanceStandards


2012 MarylandAccessibility Code

MarylandMinimum LivabilityCode

Base Code






2012 NationalStandardPlumbing Code

2012 NFGC 2012 InternationalEnergyConservationCode

2012 NFPA 101 2012 NFPA 1 2012 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code

Massachusetts(MA)

State Mandated State MassachusettsState BuildingCode, 8th Edition

MassachusettsState BuildingCode, 8th Edition


MassachusettsElectrical Code

MassachusettsState MechanicalCode

MassachusettsState PlumbingCode


MassachusettsFire PreventionRegulations


Specialized Codes

Base Code


2009InternationalResidential Code


2008 NationalElectrical Codewith Amendments(527 CMR 12.00)


Uniform PlumbingCode (248 CMR)


2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode - ASHRAE90.1

ArchitecturalAccessRegulations(CMR 521)

NFPA (527 CMR 21)

NFPA (527 CMR 21)

Michigan(MI)

Approved

The State ofMichigan enforces asingle state code that is required to be enforced by every governmental entity that elects to enforce the code. The code cannot be amended.

State Michigan UniformEnergy Code2009

Michigan FirePrevention Code


Base Code




2008 NationalElectrical Codewith Part 8TechnicalAmendments





NFPA 101 NFPA 101






MaintenanceLouisiana(LA)

State Mandated State Louisana statebuilding code

2013 Louisiana State PlumbingCode

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code,(Excluding Ch. 1,11,27,29)


2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (Excluding Ch. 1)






2009 NFPA 101

2009 NFPA 1

Maine(ME)

State Mandated

Communities over 4,000, (under 4000 do not need to enforce)

Select codes that are approved as noted.

State Maine UniformBuilding andEnergy Code(MUBEC)

Base Code




2008 NationalElectrical Code(APPROVED)

2009 InternationalMechanical Code(APPROVED)

2009 UniformPlumbing Code(APPROVED)

2009 NFPA 54

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode - 2007ASHRAE 70.1


2009 NFPA 101

2009 NFPA 1

Maryland(MD)

Approved, adopted at local level.

State Mandated forIndustrial Buildings.

Subdivisions must adopt

State Maryland BuildingPerformanceStandards



2012 MarylandAccessibility Code

MarylandMinimum LivabilityCode

Base Code







2012 NFGC 2012 InternationalEnergyConservationCode

2012 NFPA 101 2012 NFPA 1 2012 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code

Massachusetts(MA)

State Mandated State MassachusettsState BuildingCode, 8th Edition



MassachusettsElectrical Code

MassachusettsState MechanicalCode

MassachusettsState PlumbingCode




Specialized Codes

Base Code


2009InternationalResidential Code


2008 NationalElectrical Codewith Amendments(527 CMR 12.00)


Uniform PlumbingCode (248 CMR)


2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode - ASHRAE90.1

ArchitecturalAccessRegulations(CMR 521)

NFPA (527 CMR 21)

NFPA (527 CMR 21)

Michigan(MI)

Approved

The State ofMichigan enforces asingle state code that is required to be enforced by every governmental entity that elects to enforce the code. The code cannot be amended.

State Michigan UniformEnergy Code2009



Base Code




2008 NationalElectrical Codewith Part 8TechnicalAmendments





NFPA 101 NFPA 101






MaintenanceMinnesota(MN)

State Mandated

Local fire codes are also acceptable, only if they are more stringent.

State 2009 MinnesotaPlumbing Code

MinnesotaCommercialEnergy Code /MinnesotaResidentialEnergy Code

MinnesotaAccessibility Code

Base Code

2006 InternationalBuilding Code(withamendments)

2006 InternationalResidential Code with Amendments

Guidelines for theRehabilitation of Existing Structures




ANSI/ASHRAE90.1 – 2004

ICC/ANSI A117.1



Mississippi(MS)

Approved

The State of Mississippi hasapproved codes that are used for licensuretesting. However, codeadoption andenforcement is done at the local level.

State Mississippi StateFire Code

Mississippi StateFire Code

Base Code

Minimum 2006InternationalBuilding Code








NFPA NFPA

Missouri(MO)

Building codes inMissouri are adoptedand enforced at the local level.

State

Base Code

For state ownedfacilities latest ed of IBC, NEC,NFPA 101

Montana(MT)

State Mandated State

Base Code


2006 InternationalResidential Code (withamendments)

2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (withamendments)

2011 NationalElectrical Code(withamendments)

2009 InternationalMechanical Code (withamendments)

2009 UniformPlumbing Code (withamendments)

2009 InternationalFuel Gas Code(withamendments)

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withamendments)


Uniform Fire Code with Amendments


Nebraska*(NE)

Electrical, Mechanical,Fuel/Gas, and LifeSafety are State Mandated. Remaining codes are adopted andenforced at local levels,except as noted. (* listed by ICC as state codes in effect)

State CommercialConstructioninspected by FireMarshall

Statute 71-6403

Base Code

*2009InternationalBuilding Code

*2009InternationalResidential Code

*2009InternationalExisiting BuildingCode

2002 NFPA 70 2001 NFPA 85 N/A 2002 NFPA 54 *2009InternationalEnergyConservationCode


2000 NFPA 101

2000 NFPA 1






MaintenanceMinnesota(MN)

State Mandated

Local fire codes are also acceptable, only if they are more stringent.

State 2009 MinnesotaPlumbing Code

MinnesotaCommercialEnergy Code /MinnesotaResidentialEnergy Code

MinnesotaAccessibility Code

Base Code


2006 InternationalResidential Code with Amendments

Guidelines for theRehabilitation of Existing Structures




ANSI/ASHRAE90.1 – 2004

ICC/ANSI A117.1



Mississippi(MS)

Approved

The State of Mississippi hasapproved codes that are used for licensuretesting. However, codeadoption andenforcement is done at the local level.

State Mississippi StateFire Code

Mississippi StateFire Code

Base Code

Minimum 2006InternationalBuilding Code








NFPA NFPA

Missouri(MO)

Building codes inMissouri are adoptedand enforced at the local level.

State

Base Code

For state ownedfacilities latest ed of IBC, NEC,NFPA 101

Montana(MT)

State Mandated State

Base Code


2006 InternationalResidential Code (withamendments)

2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (withamendments)



2009 UniformPlumbing Code (withamendments)

2009 InternationalFuel Gas Code(withamendments)

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withamendments)




Nebraska*(NE)

Electrical, Mechanical,Fuel/Gas, and LifeSafety are State Mandated. Remaining codes are adopted andenforced at local levels,except as noted. (* listed by ICC as state codes in effect)

State CommercialConstructioninspected by FireMarshall

Statute 71-6403

Base Code

*2009InternationalBuilding Code

*2009InternationalResidential Code

*2009InternationalExisiting BuildingCode

2002 NFPA 70 2001 NFPA 85 N/A 2002 NFPA 54 *2009InternationalEnergyConservationCode


2000 NFPA 101

2000 NFPA 1






MaintenanceNevada(NV)

State Mandated

Local codes may be more stringent

State Nevada RevisedStatutes, Title 28,Chapter 338.180

Base Code




2006 UniformMechanical Code



ADA AccessibilityGuidelines(Applies only to public buildingsand facilities, stateownedbuildingsand publicschools)



New Hampshire(NH)

State Mandated

Except for propertymaintenance

State New HampshireState BuildingCode

New HampshireFire Code



Base Code


2009 InternationalResidential Code(withamendments)



2009 InternationalPlumbing Code (withamendments)

NFPA 54 2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withamendments)

2006 ICC/ANSIA117.1

2006 InternationalFire Code - NFPA 101


2009 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code(APPROVED)

New Jersey(NJ)

State Mandated State Rehab Sub-code5:23-6 updatedyearly

New JerseyAdministrativeCodes

Base Code






2009 InternationalFiel Gas Code

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withamendments)ASHRAE 90.1- 2007

ANSI A117.1-2003



New Mexico(NM)

State Mandated

Also has earthen building code

State 2009 New MexicoCommercialBuilding Code14.7.2 NMAC

14.7.3 NMAC 14.7.7 NMAC 2009 New MexicoPlumbing CodeCh. 8/New MexicoMechanical Code Ch. 9

14.7.6 NMAC

Base Code



2009 InternationalExitsing BuildingCode





1998 ICC/ANSIA117.1








MaintenanceNevada(NV)

State Mandated

Local codes may be more stringent

State Nevada RevisedStatutes, Title 28,Chapter 338.180

Base Code







ADA AccessibilityGuidelines(Applies only to public buildingsand facilities, stateownedbuildingsand publicschools)



New Hampshire(NH)

State Mandated

Except for propertymaintenance

State New HampshireState BuildingCode




Base Code






NFPA 54 2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withamendments)

2006 ICC/ANSIA117.1




New Jersey(NJ)

State Mandated State Rehab Sub-code5:23-6 updatedyearly

New JerseyAdministrativeCodes

Base Code






2009 InternationalFiel Gas Code

2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (withamendments)ASHRAE 90.1- 2007

ANSI A117.1-2003



New Mexico(NM)

State Mandated

Also has earthen building code

State 2009 New MexicoCommercialBuilding Code14.7.2 NMAC

14.7.3 NMAC 14.7.7 NMAC 2009 New MexicoPlumbing CodeCh. 8/New MexicoMechanical Code Ch. 9

14.7.6 NMAC

Base Code



2009 InternationalExitsing BuildingCode





1998 ICC/ANSIA117.1








MaintenanceNew York(NY)

State Mandated (except New York City)

State 2010 New YorkState BuildingCode

2010 New YorkState ResidentialCode

2010 New YorkState ExistingBuilding Code

2010 New York State MechanicalCode

2010 New York State PlumbingCode

2010 Fuel GasCode of New York State

2010 New YorkState BuildingCode

2010 New YorkState ADA

2010 Fire Code ofNew York State


Base Code




NFPA 70 2006 InternationalMechanical Code






North Carolina(NC)

State Mandated State 2012 NorthCarolina BuildingCode

2012 NorthCarolinaResidential Code

2009 NorthCarolinaRehabilitationCode

2011 NorthCarolina ElectricalCode

2012 NorthCarolinaMechanical Code

2012 NorthCarolinaPlumbing Code

2012 NorthCarolina Fuel Gas Code

Chapter 11 of 2012 N.C. BuildingCode

2012 NorthCarolina Fire Code


Base Code






2009 InternationaFuel Gas Code(withamendments)

2012 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (with 2012North CarolinaAmendments)

2003 ICC / ANSI117.1

2009 InternationalFire Code (withamendments)


North DakotaEffective1/1/2014(ND)

State codes areMandated for StateBuildings and Schools.Also, state codes areonly Mandated if localjurisdictions elect toadopt them.

State North DakotaState BuildingCode

Base Code








2012 InternationalBuilding Code(ch.13) 2012 InternationalResidential Code (ch.11)


2009 Uniform Fire CodeNFPA 101 2009


Ohio(OH)

State Mandated

U.S. government and military structures andagricultural buildings do not have to follow a building code.

State 2011 OhioBuilding Code4101:1

Residential Codeof Ohio 4101:8

2011 OhioBuilding Code

2011 OhioMechanical Code 4101:2

2011 OhioPlumbing Code 4101:3


2011 Ohio FireCode

2011 Ohio FireCode

Base Code




2011 NationalElectrical CodeNFPA 70




2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode & ASHRAE90.1 2007



Oklahoma(OK)

State Mandated State Oklahoma UniformBuilding Code

Base Code








ASHRAE 90.1 2009 InternationalBuilding Code









MaintenanceNew York(NY)

State Mandated (except New York City)

State 2010 New YorkState BuildingCode

2010 New YorkState ResidentialCode

2010 New YorkState ExistingBuilding Code

2010 New York State MechanicalCode

2010 New York State PlumbingCode

2010 Fuel GasCode of New York State

2010 New YorkState BuildingCode

2010 New YorkState ADA



Base Code




NFPA 70 2006 InternationalMechanical Code






North Carolina(NC)

State Mandated State 2012 NorthCarolina BuildingCode

2012 NorthCarolinaResidential Code

2009 NorthCarolinaRehabilitationCode

2011 NorthCarolina ElectricalCode

2012 NorthCarolinaMechanical Code

2012 NorthCarolinaPlumbing Code

2012 NorthCarolina Fuel Gas Code

Chapter 11 of 2012 N.C. BuildingCode



Base Code






2009 InternationaFuel Gas Code(withamendments)

2012 InternationalEnergyConservationCode (with 2012North CarolinaAmendments)

2003 ICC / ANSI117.1



North DakotaEffective1/1/2014(ND)

State codes areMandated for StateBuildings and Schools.Also, state codes areonly Mandated if localjurisdictions elect toadopt them.

State North DakotaState BuildingCode

Base Code








2012 InternationalBuilding Code(ch.13) 2012 InternationalResidential Code (ch.11)




Ohio(OH)

State Mandated

U.S. government and military structures andagricultural buildings do not have to follow a building code.

State 2011 OhioBuilding Code4101:1

Residential Codeof Ohio 4101:8


2011 OhioMechanical Code 4101:2

2011 OhioPlumbing Code 4101:3


2011 Ohio FireCode

2011 Ohio FireCode

Base Code




2011 NationalElectrical CodeNFPA 70




2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode & ASHRAE90.1 2007



Oklahoma(OK)

State Mandated State Oklahoma UniformBuilding Code

Base Code








ASHRAE 90.1 2009 InternationalBuilding Code









MaintenanceOregon(OR)

State Mandated State 2010 OregonStructuralSpecialty Code

2011 OregonResidentialSpecialty Code

2010 OregonStructuralSpecialty CodeChapter 34

2011 OregonElectricalSpecialty Code

2010 OregonMechanicalSpecialty Code

2011 OregonPlumbingSpecialty Code

2010 OregonEnergy EfficiencySpecialty Code


2010 Oregon Fire Code


Base Code




2011 NationalElectric Code






Pennsylvania(PA)

State Mandated State PennsylvaniaUniformConstruction Code

UniformConstruction CodeChapter 405


Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code,omit Chapter 1 & 30, adoptappendix H.

2009 InternationalResidential Codewith Appendix G

2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode with allAppendices or Ch. 34 IBC

2008 NationalElectrical Code,NFPA 70





2012 IBC Chapter11, Appendex E 2009 ANSI A117.1



Rhode Island(RI)

State Mandated State SBC-1-2013Rhode IslandState BuildingCode

SBC-2 RhodeIsland State Oneand Two FamilyDwelling Code

SRC-1 RhodeIsland StateRehabilitationBuilding and FireCode for ExistingBuildings andStructures

SBC-5 RhodeIsland StateElectrical Code

SBC-4 RhodeIsland StateMechanical Code

SBC-3 RhodeIsland StatePlumbing Code

SBC-19 RhodeIsland State Fuel Gas Code

SBC-8 RhodeIsland StateEnergyConservationCode

Rhode IslandUniform Fire Code


SBC-6 StatePropertyMaintenance Code

Base Code









2003 NFPA 101

2003 NFPA 1


South Carolina(SC)

State Mandated

Property Maintenance as shown. Localjurisdictions may usemore stringent codesand are responsible forinterpretation andenforcement of codes.

State South CarolinaBuilding Code

Base Code

2012 InternationalBuilding Code2006 IBC

2012 InternationalResidential Code2006 IRC

2012 InternationalExisting Building Code 2006 IEBC (APPROVED)

2011 NationalElectrical Code2008 NEC

2012 InternationalMechanical Code2006 IMC

2012 InternationalPlumbing Code2006 IPC

2012 InternationalFuel Gas Code2006 IFGC

2009 ECC2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode

latest edition/ANSI A117.1

2012International FireCode



South Dakota(SD)

Approved. Fire safety mandated for schools and daycare centers. Codes are mandated where local jurisdictions do not have their ownbuilding codes. In thecase where they do, thelocal codes are the oneswhich are followed.

State

Base Code

61:15:01 Firesafety 2008 InternationalBuilding Code



Fire safety2009 InternationalMechanical Code











MaintenanceOregon(OR)

State Mandated State 2010 OregonStructuralSpecialty Code

2011 OregonResidentialSpecialty Code


2011 OregonElectricalSpecialty Code

2010 OregonMechanicalSpecialty Code

2011 OregonPlumbingSpecialty Code

2010 OregonEnergy EfficiencySpecialty Code




Base Code




2011 NationalElectric Code






Pennsylvania(PA)

State Mandated State PennsylvaniaUniformConstruction Code



Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code,omit Chapter 1 & 30, adoptappendix H.

2009 InternationalResidential Codewith Appendix G

2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode with allAppendices or Ch. 34 IBC

2008 NationalElectrical Code,NFPA 70





2012 IBC Chapter11, Appendex E 2009 ANSI A117.1



Rhode Island(RI)

State Mandated State SBC-1-2013Rhode IslandState BuildingCode

SBC-2 RhodeIsland State Oneand Two FamilyDwelling Code

SRC-1 RhodeIsland StateRehabilitationBuilding and FireCode for ExistingBuildings andStructures

SBC-5 RhodeIsland StateElectrical Code

SBC-4 RhodeIsland StateMechanical Code

SBC-3 RhodeIsland StatePlumbing Code

SBC-19 RhodeIsland State Fuel Gas Code

SBC-8 RhodeIsland StateEnergyConservationCode



SBC-6 StatePropertyMaintenance Code

Base Code









2003 NFPA 101

2003 NFPA 1


South Carolina(SC)

State Mandated

Property Maintenance as shown. Localjurisdictions may usemore stringent codesand are responsible forinterpretation andenforcement of codes.

State South CarolinaBuilding Code

Base Code

2012 InternationalBuilding Code2006 IBC

2012 InternationalResidential Code2006 IRC

2012 InternationalExisting Building Code 2006 IEBC (APPROVED)

2011 NationalElectrical Code2008 NEC

2012 InternationalMechanical Code2006 IMC

2012 InternationalPlumbing Code2006 IPC

2012 InternationalFuel Gas Code2006 IFGC

2009 ECC2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode

latest edition/ANSI A117.1




South Dakota(SD)

Approved. Fire safety mandated for schools and daycare centers. Codes are mandated where local jurisdictions do not have their ownbuilding codes. In thecase where they do, thelocal codes are the oneswhich are followed.

State

Base Code

61:15:01 Firesafety 2008 InternationalBuilding Code



Fire safety2009 InternationalMechanical Code











MaintenanceTennessee(TN)

State Mandated

Except licensed health-carefacilities, see 1200-08-01-.08. Local may bemore stringent.

State

Base Code




2008 NationalElectric CodeNFPA 70



2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode ASHRAE90.1-07

2006 InternationalFire Code, 2006NFPA 101



Texas(TX)

State buildings mustconform to latest ICCcodes. Codes areadopted and enforced at a local level, except as indicated.

State 214.216 214.212 1305.101 rule 367.1 2012 TAC ch. 469

Base Code

2003 IBC (2006InternationalBuilding Code with Wind LoadProvisions incoastal counties)

2003 IRC (2006InternationalResidential Codewith Wind LoadProvisions incoastal counties)

Ch 34 IBC 2011 NFPA 70 2009 IMC or 2009UMC

2006 IPC or 2006UPC

2006 IFGC 2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode ASHRAE90.1-07


Fire Marshall2012 NFPA 101

2012 NFPA 101

Utah(UT)

State Mandated

Enforcement is done at local level.

State StateConstruction Code Title 15a-ch2- sec 103

StateConstruction Code State







Utah Fire Code, Section 15a-5-103;State ConstructionCode

StateConstruction Code

Base Code

2012 InternationalBuilding Code(includingAppendix J withAmendments)








2009 ICC/ANSIA117.1



Vermont(VT)

State Mandated

Except for single family dwellings

State 2012 Vermont Fire and BuildingSafety Code

2012 VermontAccessibility Rules

Base Code

2012 InternationalBuilding Code withAmendments

NFPA 101 2012

2011 NFPA 70

2006 Uniform Fire Code, NFPA 1 &NFPA 90


National BuildingInspection Code 2004



2012 NFPA 101

2012 NFPA 1

Virginia(VA)

State Mandated State 2009 VirginiaUniform StatewideBuilding Code I

2009 VirginiaUniform StatewideBuilding Code

2009 VirginiaRehabilitationCode II









2009 VirginiaMaintenanceCode III

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code, Ch. 2-35






InternationalEnergyConservationCode 2009

2009 ICC/ANSIA117.1



2009 InternationalPropertyMaintenanceCode, Ch. 2-8






MaintenanceTennessee(TN)

State Mandated

Except licensed health-carefacilities, see 1200-08-01-.08. Local may bemore stringent.

State

Base Code




2008 NationalElectric CodeNFPA 70



2006 InternationalEnergyConservationCode ASHRAE90.1-07




Texas(TX)

State buildings mustconform to latest ICCcodes. Codes areadopted and enforced at a local level, except as indicated.

State 214.216 214.212 1305.101 rule 367.1 2012 TAC ch. 469

Base Code

2003 IBC (2006InternationalBuilding Code with Wind LoadProvisions incoastal counties)

2003 IRC (2006InternationalResidential Codewith Wind LoadProvisions incoastal counties)

Ch 34 IBC 2011 NFPA 70 2009 IMC or 2009UMC

2006 IPC or 2006UPC

2006 IFGC 2009 InternationalEnergyConservationCode ASHRAE90.1-07


Fire Marshall2012 NFPA 101

2012 NFPA 101

Utah(UT)

State Mandated

Enforcement is done at local level.

State StateConstruction Code Title 15a-ch2- sec 103








Utah Fire Code, Section 15a-5-103;State ConstructionCode

StateConstruction Code

Base Code

2012 InternationalBuilding Code(includingAppendix J withAmendments)








2009 ICC/ANSIA117.1



Vermont(VT)

State Mandated

Except for single family dwellings

State 2012 Vermont Fire and BuildingSafety Code

2012 VermontAccessibility Rules

Base Code

2012 InternationalBuilding Code withAmendments

NFPA 101 2012

2011 NFPA 70

2006 Uniform Fire Code, NFPA 1 &NFPA 90


National BuildingInspection Code 2004



2012 NFPA 101

2012 NFPA 1

Virginia(VA)

State Mandated State 2009 VirginiaUniform StatewideBuilding Code I


2009 VirginiaRehabilitationCode II









2009 VirginiaMaintenanceCode III

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code, Ch. 2-35






InternationalEnergyConservationCode 2009

2009 ICC/ANSIA117.1



2009 InternationalPropertyMaintenanceCode, Ch. 2-8






MaintenanceWashington(WA)

State Mandated State Washington StateBuilding CodeWAC 51-50

WAC 51-51 WAC 51-52 WAC 51-56 WAC 51-11cWAC 51-11r

WAC 51-54

Base Code

2012 InternationalBuilding Code w/ Appendix E and 2009 ICC/ANSI A117.1 withAmendments

2012 InternationalResidential Codew/ Appendices F and G (omit Ch. 11 and 25 through42) withAmendments

2012 InternationalExisting BuildingCode, withAmendments

2008 NEC 2008 2012 InternationalMechanical Code2011 NFPA 582012 NFPA 54

2012 UniformPlumbing Code wAppendices A, B, and I withAmendments

2012 InternationalMechanical CodeCode withNFPA 58NFPA 54

2012 WashingtonState EnergyCode

ADA AccessibilityGuidelines; 2009InternationalBuilding Code, Ch. 10 and 11; 2009ICC/ANSI A117.1

2006 NFPA 101 2012 InternationalFire Code


West Virginia(WV)

State Mandated

Through fire marshall

State

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code,omit “FirePrevention,”Section 101.4.5

2009 InternationalResidential Code,some exceptionsapply

2009 InternationalExisting Building Code

2008 NationalElectrical Code(NFPA 70)



2009 NationalFuel Gas CodeNFPA 54,58


2003 ICC/ANSIA117.1

2009 NFPA Life Safety Code



Wisconsin(WI)

State Mandated

However, municipalitiesmay choose strictercodes

State 2011 WisconsinCommercialBuilding CodeSPS 360-366

WisconsinCommercialBuilding Code

WisconsinCommercialBuilding Code 365

WisconsinCommercialBuilding Code363

2009 ICC/ANSIA117.1

CH. 14, 30

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code,

Uniform BuildingCode SPS 320-321

2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode, WisconsinCommercialBuilding CodeSPS366

2008 NationalElectrical CodeSPS316





2009 NFPA-1 2009 NFPA-1 WisconsinCommercialBuilding Code

Wyoming(WY)

State Mandated

Except for plumbing,which is adopted andenforced at a local level.Many of the codes areonly adopted to theextent as they arereferenced in the IBC,IMC, IFGC, and IFC

State

Base Code


Provisions of 2012InternationalResidential Code(as referenced in IBC, IMC, IFGC, and IFC, all 2012) that apply to Life Safety

2012 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (asreferenced in IBC, IMC, IFGC, and IFC, all 2012)




Not adopted 2012 InternationalFire Code w/Appendix D, E, F, and G

2012 InternationalFire Code w/Appendix D, E, F, and G

2012 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code (as referenced in IBC, IMC, IFGC, and IFC, all 2012) that apply to lifesafety






MaintenanceWashington(WA)

State Mandated State Washington StateBuilding CodeWAC 51-50

WAC 51-51 WAC 51-52 WAC 51-56 WAC 51-11cWAC 51-11r

WAC 51-54

Base Code

2012 InternationalBuilding Code w/ Appendix E and 2009 ICC/ANSI A117.1 withAmendments

2012 InternationalResidential Codew/ Appendices F and G (omit Ch. 11 and 25 through42) withAmendments

2012 InternationalExisting BuildingCode, withAmendments

2008 NEC 2008 2012 InternationalMechanical Code2011 NFPA 582012 NFPA 54

2012 UniformPlumbing Code wAppendices A, B, and I withAmendments

2012 InternationalMechanical CodeCode withNFPA 58NFPA 54

2012 WashingtonState EnergyCode

ADA AccessibilityGuidelines; 2009InternationalBuilding Code, Ch. 10 and 11; 2009ICC/ANSI A117.1



West Virginia(WV)

State Mandated

Through fire marshall

State

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code,omit “FirePrevention,”Section 101.4.5

2009 InternationalResidential Code,some exceptionsapply

2009 InternationalExisting Building Code

2008 NationalElectrical Code(NFPA 70)



2009 NationalFuel Gas CodeNFPA 54,58


2003 ICC/ANSIA117.1




Wisconsin(WI)

State Mandated

However, municipalitiesmay choose strictercodes

State 2011 WisconsinCommercialBuilding CodeSPS 360-366

WisconsinCommercialBuilding Code

WisconsinCommercialBuilding Code 365

WisconsinCommercialBuilding Code363

2009 ICC/ANSIA117.1

CH. 14, 30

Base Code

2009 InternationalBuilding Code,

Uniform BuildingCode SPS 320-321

2009 InternationalExisting BuildingCode, WisconsinCommercialBuilding CodeSPS366

2008 NationalElectrical CodeSPS316





2009 NFPA-1 2009 NFPA-1 WisconsinCommercialBuilding Code

Wyoming(WY)

State Mandated

Except for plumbing,which is adopted andenforced at a local level.Many of the codes areonly adopted to theextent as they arereferenced in the IBC,IMC, IFGC, and IFC

State

Base Code


Provisions of 2012InternationalResidential Code(as referenced in IBC, IMC, IFGC, and IFC, all 2012) that apply to Life Safety

2012 InternationalExisting BuildingCode (asreferenced in IBC, IMC, IFGC, and IFC, all 2012)




Not adopted 2012 InternationalFire Code w/Appendix D, E, F, and G

2012 InternationalFire Code w/Appendix D, E, F, and G

2012 InternationalPropertyMaintenance Code (as referenced in IBC, IMC, IFGC, and IFC, all 2012) that apply to lifesafety


Alabama http://www.bc.alabama.gov/buildingcode.htm

Alaska http://www.dps.state.ak.us/Fire/regulations.aspxhttp://www.dps.state.ak.us/Fire/docs/13AAC50_2.pdf

Arizona http://bcap-energy.org/node/54#current http://www.seaoa.org/azcodes.htm

Arkansas http://www.arkansasbuildingauthority.com/about/manual.htmlhttp://www.bookmarki.com/Arkansas-Building-Code-s/75.htmhttp://arkansasenergy.org/search.aspx?search=code

California http://www.bsc.ca.gov/default.htm

Colorado http://www.dola.state.co.us/

Connecticut http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2148&Q=305412

Delaware http://statefiremarshal.delaware.gov/information/2009fire_regulations.shtml


http://dcra.dc.gov/DC/DCRA/Permits/Construction+Codes

Florida http://www.floridabuilding.org/c/default.aspxhttp://nfpaweb3.gvpi.net/rrserver/browser?title=/NFPAFLA/FloridaNFPA1and1012006

Georgia http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/constructioncodes/programs/codes2.asphttp://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/ConstructionCodes/programs/downloads/Fall09CodesUpdate.pdf

Hawaii http://hawaii.gov/dags/bcc/comments/approved-building-code-rules

Idaho http://dbs.idaho.gov/building/id_code.html

Illinois http://www.cdb.state.il.us/CDBWEB.nsf/IBCHistory?OpenForm

Indiana http://www.in.gov/dhs/2490.htm http://www.archive.org/details/gov.in.building

Iowa http://www.dps.state.ia.us/fm/building/index.shtmlhttp://www.dps.state.ia.us/fm/building/new_sbc_adopted.shtml

Kansas http://www.da.ks.gov/fm/dfm/information/handbook.htm http://www.ksfm.ks.gov/code-listing/

Kentucky http://dhbc.ky.gov/bce/KY+BC.htm

Louisiana http://sfm.dps.louisiana.gov/

Maine http://www.maine.gov/dps/bbcs/

Maryland http://mdcodes.umbc.edu

http://mdcodes.umbc.edu/dhcd2/List%20of%20Applicable%20Codes%20for%20MBPS%20-%20February%203,%202010.pdf

Massachusetts http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopsterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Consumer+Protection+%26+Business+Licensing&L2=License+Type+by+Business+Area&L3=Construction+Supervisor+License&sid=Eeops&b=terminalcontent&f=dps_bbrs_building_code&csid=Eeops

Michigan http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-10575---,00.htmlhttp://www.archive.org/details/gov.mi.building

Minnesota http://www.dli.mn.gov/ccld/Codes.asp http://www.dli.mn.gov/ccld/PDF/sbc_makeup.pdf

Mississippi http://www.eea-inc.com/rrdb/DGRegProject/States/MS.html

Missouri Missouri Division of Design and Construction

Montana http://bsd.dli.mt.gov/bc/current_codes.asp http://bsd.dli.mt.gov/bc/pdf/bc_rules.pdf

Nebraska http://www.sfm.state.ne.us/

Nevada http://fire.state.nv.us/Engineering.shtml

Building Codes in Effect By StateSources


New Hampshire http://www.nh.gov/safety/boardsandcommissions/bldgcode/nhstatebldgcode.htmlhttp://www.nh.gov/safety/boardsandcommissions/bldgcode/documents/BCRBwebnotice3-10.pdfhttp://www.nh.gov/safety/boardsandcommissions/bldgcode/bldgamend.html

New Jersey http://www.state.nj.us/dca/codes/forms/xls/adopcode.shtml

New Mexico http://www.rld.state.nm.us/cid/index.htm

New York http://www.dos.state.ny.us/code/ls-codes.htmlhttp://publicecodes.citation.com/st/ny/st/index.htm

North Carolina http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Engineering/BCC/engineering_bcc_codes_2009_approved.asp

North Dakota http://www.communityservices.nd.gov/uploads/resources/409/07bcode.pdf

Ohio http://com.ohio.gov/dico/BBS.aspx http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/oh/st/OH-P-2005-000004.htm

Oklahoma http://www.firemar.state.ok.us/adoptedcodes.htmhttp://www.archive.org/details/gov.ok.building

Oregon http://www.bcd.oregon.gov/codeprograms.htmlhttp://www.bcd.oregon.gov/programs/codes_in_oregon.html

Pennsylvania http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/uniform_construction_code/10524

Rhode Island http://sos.ri.gov/library/buildingcodes/ http://www.archive.org/details/gov.ri.buildinghttp://sos.ri.gov/library/buildingcodes/

South Carolina http://www.llr.state.sc.us/POL/bcc/http://www.llr.state.sc.us/pol/bcc/PDFfiles/notice%20of%20code%20adoption%20state%20register.pdf

South Dakota http://dps.sd.gov/emergency_services/state_fire_marshal/fire_laws.aspx

Tennessee http://tn.gov/commerce/sfm/fpcesect.shtmlhttp://tn.gov/commerce/sfm/documents/AdoptedCodes06.01.pdf

Texas http://www.archive.org/details/gov.tx.building

Utah http://www.dopl.utah.gov/programs/ubc/index.htmlhttp://www.archive.org/details/gov.ut.buildinghttp://www.dopl.utah.gov/laws/state_construction_code.pdf

Vermont http://www.dps.state.vt.us/fire/rules.htmhttp://www.dps.state.vt.us/fire/06firecodeADOPTEDjune15092.pdfhttp://www.vermont.gov/portal/business/index.php?id=93http://www.archive.org/details/gov.vt.building

Virginia http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/StateBuildingCodesandRegulations/default.htmhttp://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/StateBuildingCodesandRegulations/Virginia_Uniform_Statewide_Building_Code.htm

Washington http://sbcc.wa.gov/Page.aspx?nid=14

West Virginia http://www.firemarshal.wv.gov/PlansReview/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.firemarshal.wv.gov/Documents/87-04%20%20Building%20Code%202010.pdf

Wisconsin http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/SB/SB-DivCodesListing.html

Wyoming http://wyofire.state.wy.us/index.html

Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.555 College Road EastP.O. Box 5241Princeton, NJ 08543-5241Tel: (609) 243-4200www.munichreamerica.com

© Copyright 2014 Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. All rights reserved.

“Munich RE” and the Munich Re logo are internationally protected registered trademarks. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.

First Party Property Claims Desk Reference - Munich Re€¦ · 2 Notice of Claim and Proof of Loss...

Documents

Transcript of First Party Property Claims Desk Reference - Munich Re€¦ · 2 Notice of Claim and Proof of Loss...