{"_meta":{"register":"When an auto insurer settles a total loss at actual cash value, must the settlement also cover sales tax and/or title and registration fees, and on what terms. This register does NOT decide when a vehicle IS a total loss, and does not decide title branding; those are separate registers.","coverage":"21 of 51 US jurisdictions verified so far. A state absent from this file has NOT been verified either way; absence is not a \"no\".","method":"Each row was read from the state statute, administrative code, or regulator document named in its citation, checked for repeal markers, with the quote verified present in the fetched bytes before the row shipped.","license":"CC BY 4.0: attribute to The Autobody Directory with a link.","asOf":"2026-08-14"},"counts":{"verified":21,"byAnswer":{"conditional":6,"yes":15}},"rows":[{"state":"AR","name":"Arkansas","required":"conditional","scope":"first-party automobile total losses; the REPLACEMENT path pays taxes and fees outright, the CASH path pays only fees ACTUALLY INCURRED","citation":"23 CAR 15-108(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(A)","source":"https://codeofarrules.arkansas.gov/Rules/Rule?levelType=section&titleID=23&chapterID=39&subChapterID=187&partID=615&subPartID=4304&sectionID=27085","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ 2026-08-13 from the live Code of Arkansas Rules, checked for repeal markers and clean. CONDITIONAL because the two settlement paths differ in a way that decides whether a consumer sees the money. The quoted sentence is the REPLACEMENT path and is unconditional. The cash path at (b)(2)(A) instead says \"actually incurred\", which works like Florida timing: no purchase, no incurred fee, no payment. An Arkansas consumer taking cash and not replacing the car is in a materially different position from one accepting a replacement vehicle, and a flat \"yes\" would hide that."},{"state":"CA","name":"California","required":"yes","scope":"first-party and third-party automobile total loss claims settled in cash; paid up front, not on proof of replacement","citation":"10 CCR 2695.8(b)(1) and (b)(1)(A)","source":"https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IE65CC3295C2F11EC9C68000D3A7C4BC3","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ 2026-08-13. CALIFORNIA IS THE OPPOSITE OF FLORIDA and that contrast is the useful fact: the quoted sentence makes the payment unconditional on replacement, so a California claimant is owed the tax up front whether or not they ever buy another car, while a Florida insurer may lawfully hold it until the tax is actually incurred. Also note the retained-salvage rule in (A): keeping the wreck does not forfeit the tax, it only discounts it by the tax attributable to salvage value. PROVENANCE, stated plainly: the California Department of Insurance says on its own site that it does not post its official regulations and links this section to the California Code of Regulations site that the state contracts to publish the official code free to the public. There is no state-hosted copy; this is the state designated channel, which is why it is accepted here on the same reasoning that accepted NAIC-hosted state complaint intakes. Quoted minimally by design."},{"state":"CO","name":"Colorado","required":"yes","scope":"total loss of a motor vehicle; the surrounding section also imposes disclosure duties toward third-party claimants and a fair, consistent total-loss valuation method","citation":"C.R.S. 10-4-639(1)","source":"https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-10.pdf","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ via the state bulk download, not runner-read: the Colorado General Assembly publishes uncertified printouts of each C.R.S. title, and Title 10 (Insurance) was downloaded from the leg.colorado.gov download page and read offline on 2026-08-13. The plainest duty in the register so far -- one sentence, three cost categories, no condition. Contrast Connecticut, where the same money turns on the insurer taking title, and Florida, where it turns on when the tax is actually incurred. Section 10-4-639 is titled \"Claims practices for property damage\"; subsections (3) and (4) also require a fair and consistent total-loss valuation method and let the commissioner make rules, which is where any Colorado follow-up should look."},{"state":"CT","name":"Connecticut","required":"conditional","scope":"constructive total loss of a motor vehicle; sales tax component owed ONLY where the insurer takes title to the vehicle","citation":"Conn. Gen. Stat. 38a-816(16)","source":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_704.htm","readOn":"2026-08-13","valuationFloor":{"citation":"Conn. Gen. Stat. s 38a-353 (formerly s 38-175y), \"Calculation of settlement amount on totalled motor vehicle. Disclosures required.\"","source":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_700.htm","readOn":"2026-08-14","readVia":"READ IN CHROME 2026-08-14 from the official Connecticut General Assembly chapter 700 (Property and Casualty Insurance) text.","rule":"A TWO-SOURCE AVERAGING FLOOR. Verbatim: \"Whenever any damaged motor vehicle covered under an automobile insurance policy has been declared to be a constructive total loss by the insurer, the insurer shall, in calculating the value of such vehicle for purposes of determining the settlement amount to be paid to the claimant, USE AT LEAST THE AVERAGE OF THE RETAIL VALUES given such vehicle by (1) the National Automobile Dealers Association used car guide or any other publicly available automobile industry source that has been approved for such use by the Insurance Commissioner, and (2) ONE OTHER automobile industry source that has been approved for such use by said commissioner.\"","whyItMatters":"THIS IS A FLOOR ON THE NUMBER ITSELF, which is rarer than a rule about what the settlement must INCLUDE. Connecticut does not merely tell an insurer to add taxes and fees; it constrains how the underlying value may be computed -- at least the average of two commissioner-approved sources, not the lower of them and not a single proprietary product. For a consumer arguing a lowball total-loss valuation in Connecticut, this is the sentence to cite.","constructiveTotalLoss":"Defined in the same section and it is a break-even, not a percentage: \"the cost to repair or salvage damaged property, or the cost to both repair and salvage such property, EQUALS OR EXCEEDS the total value of the property at the time of\" the loss. Note it counts repair AND/OR SALVAGE cost, which is broader than a pure repair-cost test.","disclosureSubsection":"P.A. 10-7 designated the existing text as subsection (a) and ADDED SUBSECTION (b), effective 1 January 2011, \"to require insurer to provide certain documents and disclosures to claimant re settlement amount\". THE SUBSECTION (b) TEXT ITSELF WAS NOT TRANSCRIBED -- only the amendment note describing it. Do not state what must be disclosed until (b) is read.","amendmentHistory":"P.A. 10-7 also added \"or any other publicly available automobile industry source that has been approved for such use by the Insurance Commissioner\" to limb (1), widening it beyond NADA alone.","foundVia":"A SALVAGE CROSS-REFERENCE. s 14-16c(f) (the theft-stamping exemption) points at 38a-353 purely for how to determine retail value; chasing that pointer surfaced a claims-lane valuation floor that no phrasing sweep of this register had found. Cross-register pointers are a discovery channel, not just a completeness chore (D-393/D-396)."},"notes":"BROWSER-READ, not runner-read: located and read on 2026-08-13. CONDITIONAL, and the condition is the whole story: the tax is owed only \"whenever the insurer takes title to such vehicle\". A consumer who keeps the salvage in Connecticut is outside the subdivision, which is the opposite of Maryland. Note also the drafting: the duty is written as a FAILURE, listed among unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts under 38a-816, so non-payment is an unfair insurance practice and the complaint route is the department. || VALUATION FLOOR ADDED 2026-08-14 (D-396): s 38a-353 requires the insurer, on a constructive total loss, to use AT LEAST THE AVERAGE of retail values from two commissioner-approved industry sources. That constrains the VALUE the settlement is built on, which sits alongside this row's existing conditional answer about taxes and fees rather than replacing it -- CT still conditions the sales-tax component on the insurer taking title (s 38a-816(16)). Subsection (b) adds claimant disclosure duties whose text has NOT been read."},{"state":"FL","name":"Florida","required":"conditional","scope":"first-party motor vehicle total losses settled in cash; tax is included in the measure of the settlement, but the insurer may defer paying it until the claimant actually incurs it","citation":"Fla. Stat. 626.9743(5)(a) and (9) (2025)","source":"https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/626.9743","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ, not runner-read: located and read on 2026-08-13 in the 2025 edition, which is the current one the legislature publishes (a 2026 URL redirects to the index). CONDITIONAL on timing rather than on entitlement. 626.9743(5)(a) measures the cash settlement \"including sales tax\", so the money is owed; (9) lets the insurer hold it back until the claimant actually buys a replacement. A consumer told \"we do not pay sales tax\" is being misinformed; a consumer told \"we will pay it when you replace the car\" is being quoted the statute. That distinction is the reason this row is conditional and not a flat yes."},{"state":"GA","name":"Georgia","required":"yes","scope":"first party total loss vehicle claims settled by cash equivalent; amount payable on taxes and fees is CAPPED at what would have been paid on the totaled vehicle","citation":"Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-52-.06(a)","source":"https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/120-2-52","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ 2026-08-13 from the live Georgia Administrative Code, checked for repeal markers and clean. THE CAP IS THE POINT and it is unique in the register so far: a consumer replacing with a more expensive car does not get the tax on the more expensive car, only what the totaled vehicle would have attracted. So Georgia is a \"yes\" that can still leave a shortfall, and a consumer who budgets the full replacement tax will be short. Recorded as yes because the duty is unconditional; the cap belongs in scope and covers, not in the verdict."},{"state":"IL","name":"Illinois","required":"yes","scope":"first-party private passenger automobile total losses","citation":"50 Ill. Adm. Code 919.80(c)(3)(A)","source":"https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/050/050009190000800R.html","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ, not runner-read: located and read in the browser on 2026-08-13. Note the two paths differ in a way that matters to a consumer -- replacement vehicle means the insurer PAYS the tax and fees; cash settlement means it REIMBURSES them, and only if the insured actually buys or leases within 30 days and documents it within 33. A register that recorded only \"yes\" would hide the deadline that decides whether anyone gets the money."},{"state":"KY","name":"Kentucky","required":"yes","scope":"first-party motor vehicle total losses (Section 7 governs settlement of first-party motor vehicle total losses)","citation":"806 KAR 12:095","source":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles/806/012/095/","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"Quote verified present on the page. The fuller phrasing seen in the earlier run of the same page reads \"all applicable taxes, license fees (if these fees cannot be refunded by the Transportation Cabinet), and other fees incident to transfer of evidence of ownership\"; only the shorter string is recorded as verbatim because that is what THIS run returned and proved."},{"state":"MD","name":"Maryland","required":"yes","scope":"first-party and third-party motor vehicle total losses; taxes and transfer fees form part of the insurer MINIMUM cash-settlement offer","citation":"COMAR 31.15.12.04A(2) and B(2)","source":"https://regs.maryland.gov/us/md/exec/comar/31.15.12","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ, not runner-read: located and read on 2026-08-13. The strongest wording found so far. Two things distinguish Maryland: the tax is part of the insurer's MINIMUM offer rather than something to be asked for, and the phrase \"regardless of whether the claimant retains salvage rights\" closes the loophole other states leave open, where keeping the wreck is treated as a reason to withhold tax. Chapter 12 is titled Valuation of Motor Vehicles and sits inside Subtitle 15, UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, so a failure here is an unfair trade practice, not merely a contract dispute."},{"state":"MN","name":"Minnesota","required":"yes","scope":"first-party (an insured under actual cash value provisions)","citation":"Minn. Stat. 72A.201","source":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/72A.201","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"THE DIGEST QUOTE WAS REFUSED and is not what this row rests on: the model returned a paraphrase ending in an invented ellipsis, and verify-quotes.js rejected it. The duty below was taken from the runner's raw page snippet and checked against the cached bytes directly. Note the statute frames it as a PROHIBITED PRACTICE (settling for less than value including taxes and fees), not as an affirmative duty to pay them."},{"state":"MS","name":"Mississippi","required":"conditional","scope":"total auto loss claims; the Department position is that sales tax, title fees and license fees should be paid UNLESS the policy clearly and unambiguously excludes them","citation":"Mississippi Insurance Department Bulletin 2007-4 (18 June 2007)","source":"https://www.mid.ms.gov/legal/bulletins/20074bull.PDF","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"VISUAL READ 2026-08-13. The bulletin is a scanned image with no text layer, so it was extracted as a raster and read as an image; signed by Commissioner of Insurance George Dale.\nMISSISSIPPI IS A FOURTH DRAFTING SHAPE: POLICY-DEFAULT. There is no statute or regulation compelling payment. The Department states plainly that \"there is no specific requirement for a personal auto coverage policy to contain a provision requiring\" it, then reasons from the make-whole principle that absent a clear and unambiguous EXCLUSION in the policy, the fees should be paid. So the answer turns on the policy wording rather than on the settlement method or salvage retention. For a consumer this means: read your policy for an exclusion first, and if there is none, the regulator is on your side.\nAGE CAVEAT, RECORDED HONESTLY: this bulletin is from 2007 and reasons from \"current Mississippi law\" as of then; its letterhead still cites doi.state.ms.us. It remains published on the Department current site with no withdrawal or supersession marker found, but it is nineteen years old and is the oldest instrument in this register by a wide margin. Re-check before relying on it. CURRENCY RE-CHECKED 2026-08-13: searched mid.ms.gov for any later bulletin on total loss or sales tax and for a supersession notice. None found -- 2007-4 remains the Department published position on this question, and the file is still served from the current site. That is the best currency evidence available for a bulletin, and it is weaker than the version history Rhode Island publishes.\nTHE SNIPPET WOULD HAVE LIED: search results surfaced only the \"no specific requirement\" clause, which alone reads as a flat NO. The document concludes the opposite."},{"state":"NV","name":"Nevada","required":"yes","scope":"not stated in the read text","citation":"NAC Chapter 686A","source":"https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nac/nac-686a.html","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"quote verified on the page by verify-quotes.js. Citation recorded at chapter level because the chapter page was what was read; narrow it to the section when a run reads the section itself."},{"state":"NJ","name":"New Jersey","required":"yes","scope":"first party and third party private passenger automobile total losses settled in cash; sales tax must ALSO be applied to the salvage retention deduction","citation":"N.J.A.C. 11:3-10.4(a), as construed by DOBI Bulletin 09-23","source":"https://www.nj.gov/dobi/bulletins/blt09_23.pdf","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"READ ON THE REGULATOR OWN SITE 2026-08-13. Source is Bulletin 09-23, issued by the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance on 27 July 2009 to all New Jersey automobile insurers, carrying no repeal or withdrawal markers. Same tier as the New York General Counsel opinion: a formal departmental interpretation of the operative rule, published by the department itself.\nNEW JERSEY IS THE OPPOSITE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON THE FACT THAT DIVIDES THEM. North Carolina excludes a claimant who retains the salvage vehicle from the tax entitlement entirely. New Jersey goes the other way and requires sales tax to be ADDED to the salvage retention deduction, and issued this bulletin precisely because insurers were leaving it out and underpaying. A consumer keeping the wreck is owed less in North Carolina and more in New Jersey, on identical facts. The bulletin exists because the underpayment was systematic, which is also why it is worth surfacing."},{"state":"NY","name":"New York","required":"yes","scope":"physical damage total loss claims; sales tax is a component of actual cash value. TITLE COSTS ARE EXPRESSLY NOT REQUIRED","citation":"11 NYCRR 216.6(b)(2) (Regulation 64)","source":"https://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/ogco2001/rg103122.htm","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"READ ON THE REGULATOR OWN SITE 2026-08-13. Source is Office of General Counsel Opinion 01-03-11, published by the New York State Department of Financial Services, which quotes the operative text of Regulation 64. THE CARVE-OUT IS THE POINT: New York requires sales tax but expressly does NOT require title costs, and the opinion exists because an insurer told a consumer New York required neither. That is a documented instance of the exact misinformation this register is meant to answer. Contrast Colorado, which names title fees, sales tax and transfer or registration fees together, and Maryland, which pays taxes and transfer fees regardless of salvage retention. Recorded against the opinion rather than the code because the Department publishes the opinion itself; NYCRR sits on the state contracted commercial platform."},{"state":"NC","name":"North Carolina","required":"conditional","scope":"total loss motor vehicle settlements; sales tax and vehicle registration fees are part of the actual cash value settlement EXCEPT where the claimant keeps the salvage","citation":"11 NCAC 04 .0418(f)","source":"https://www.ncdoi.gov/documents/consumer/administrative-rules-changes-claims-handling-2020/open","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ 2026-08-13 from the North Carolina Department of Insurance Consumer Services Division circular publishing the rule, effective 1 October 2020. NORTH CAROLINA IS THE MIRROR IMAGE OF MARYLAND and the pair is the clearest illustration in the register of why \"does my state require it\" is the wrong question. Maryland pays taxes and transfer fees \"regardless of whether the claimant retains salvage rights\"; North Carolina pays them \"except where the claimant retains the salvage vehicle\". Same money, opposite answer, on the same fact. Recorded conditional for that reason. The circular notes these rules were not yet on the Office of Administrative Hearings site when issued, which is why the Department published them itself; a future pass should re-point at the OAH copy of 11 NCAC 04 .0418 once available and confirm the text is unchanged."},{"state":"OH","name":"Ohio","required":"conditional","scope":"not narrowed in the read text","citation":"OAC 3901-1-54","source":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3901-1-54","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"Recorded as CONDITIONAL, not \"yes\": the duty is a REIMBURSEMENT triggered by the claimant actually buying a replacement within the period, not tax paid up front with the settlement. That distinction is the whole practical difference for someone deciding whether to buy. CITATION CORRECTED BY HAND: the extract returned \"H(7)(f)\", a subdivision with no rule number; the rule is 3901-1-54, from the URL read. This page was the spec control until it proved unreadable twice and was demoted to an ordinary source; the curl transport fallback recovered it this run."},{"state":"PA","name":"Pennsylvania","required":"yes","scope":"total loss settlements; sales tax on the REPLACEMENT COST is part of the replacement value the insurer must offer","citation":"31 Pa. Code 62.3(g)(4)","source":"https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/031/chapter62/s62.3.html","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ 2026-08-13 from the live Pennsylvania Code, no repeal markers. PENNSYLVANIA WAS CARRIED AS A WALL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE END OF IT: one host refusing us was recorded as the state being unreachable, when the official Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin site answers fine. A wall is a fact about a HOST, never about a jurisdiction. Note also the trap on this very page: 62.3(e)(7) lists \"Applicable sales tax\" among items a REPAIR appraisal must itemise, which is repair-cost composition and not a settlement duty -- the same near-miss as Massachusetts 212 CMR 2.04, and it is the first hit a text search finds. The total-loss duty is (g)(4). Structuring the tax as part of the replacement VALUE, rather than a fee added afterwards, is what makes Pennsylvania unconditional."},{"state":"RI","name":"Rhode Island","required":"yes","scope":"any total loss claim; stated as a compensation principle rather than tied to a settlement method or to salvage retention","citation":"230-RICR-20-40-2, Miscellaneous Requirements E(3)","source":"https://rules.sos.ri.gov/regulations/part/230-20-40-2","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ 2026-08-13 from the Rhode Island Secretary of State live rules site, then the official regulation PDF the site serves. Currency is explicit rather than inferred: the site shows this amendment as \"effective from 02/27/2026 to Current\" and lists the superseded versions beneath it, which is the clearest version history any state has given us. No repeal markers.\nRHODE ISLAND IS DRAFTED DIFFERENTLY FROM EVERY OTHER ROW and that is why it is a clean yes. Most states hang the duty off a settlement METHOD -- cash versus replacement -- which is what creates the conditionals in Arkansas, Illinois and Florida, or off salvage retention, which is what splits Maryland from North Carolina. Rhode Island instead states the PURPOSE, \"in order to fully compensate for the loss to the consumer\", and applies it to \"any total loss claim\". There is no method to fall between and no salvage carve-out to lose. Consumer effect: in Rhode Island the question \"which settlement did you take\" does not change the tax answer."},{"state":"TN","name":"Tennessee","required":"yes","scope":"The bulletin says \"all losses\" and \"all settlements\", and addresses \"the insured OR CLAIMANT\" -- the word claimant reaches third parties. RECORD IT THAT WAY AND NO FURTHER: the bulletin does not use the phrase \"third party\", so \"it reaches third-party claims\" is an inference from one word, not a quotation. Say what it says.","citation":"TDCI Bulletin, \"Payment of Sales Tax - Total Losses\", 1 September 1989","source":"https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/commerce/documents/insurance/bulletins/9-1-89C.pdf","readOn":"2026-08-14","notes":""},{"state":"VA","name":"Virginia","required":"yes","scope":"first party total loss settled at actual cash value, INCLUDING where the insured keeps the salvage","citation":"14 VAC 5-400-70 D, as construed in Bureau of Insurance guidance (Va. Code 58.1-2400 et seq. referenced)","source":"https://www.scc.virginia.gov/media/sccvirginiagov-home/regulated-industries/insurance/current-agents-agencies/property-amp-casualty/pc_prob.pdf","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"BROWSER-READ 2026-08-13 from the Virginia State Corporation Commission Bureau of Insurance guidance document \"Common Problems Identified by the Property and Casualty Market Conduct and Consumer Services Sections\", published on the Commission own site. Same tier as the New York General Counsel opinion and the New Jersey Commissioner bulletin: the regulator stating what its rule requires.\nVIRGINIA JOINS THE SALVAGE-CONDITIONED GROUP AND RESOLVES IT FOR THE CONSUMER. The guidance is headed \"owner-retained salvage\" and says the tax is owed \"including when the insured retains the salvage\". That puts Virginia with Maryland and against North Carolina on the single fact that most often decides whether a claimant is paid. Note also that Virginia is one of the few to name LOCAL as well as state tax.\nTHIS ROW CORRECTS AN EARLIER NO-HIT. The runner read 14VAC5-400-70 in the very first total-loss-tax run and reported \"read, no hit\", which was accurate about the TEXT -- the rule sets general claim-settlement standards and never uses the words \"sales tax\". The duty exists through the regulator construction of that rule, which its examiners enforce: market conduct reports from 2018 through 2026 repeatedly cite 14 VAC 5-400-70 D for failure to pay proper sales and use tax, title fee and license fee on first party total losses."},{"state":"WA","name":"Washington","required":"yes","scope":"not stated in the read text. The quoted duty does not name first- or third-party; the words \"first party claim\" appear nearby in a different subsection about settlement adjustments and are not carried over here.","citation":"WAC 284-30-391","source":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=284-30-391","readOn":"2026-08-13","notes":"CITATION CORRECTED BY HAND: the extract returned \"WAC 284-30-392\", which is a cross-reference to the valuation-report section mentioned one sentence earlier. The duty is on the page fetched, 284-30-391. A cross-reference sitting next to a duty is not the duty's citation."}]}