AUTOBODY DIRECTORY
Home › Guides › Deny and Delay: The States That Name It in Law, Quoted

Deny and Delay: The States That Name It in Law, Quoted

Short answer: in several states "deny and delay" is not just a grievance but named conduct in the unfair claims settlement practice rules. The naming is specific: an insurer may not compel you to file suit by offering substantially less than the amount you ultimately recover. Oklahoma, Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington all carry a version of that limb in the provisions we have read on each state's own site. What the secondary coverage never adds, and this page does: whether ONE badly handled claim counts as a violation differs sharply by state, almost none of these rules let you sue on the rule itself, and prohibiting delay is not the same thing as pricing it. One state we have read prices it.

By Anthony Braswell for Quorum Industries LLC, The Autobody Directory · Updated 2026-08-15 · How this was written, and what the machine may not do

How this page was produced: Researched, drafted and checked with AI assistance under human direction, and signed off by the named author. How this site is written

What this page will show you

The conduct, in the states' own words

Oklahoma, 36 O.S. s 1250.5(13), read on the state courts network's own text: it is an unfair claim settlement practice to engage in "Compelling, without just cause, policyholders to institute suits to recover amounts due under its insurance policies or insurance contracts by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in suits brought by them, when the policyholders have made claims for amounts reasonably similar to the amounts ultimately recovered."

Missouri, RSMo 375.1007(5): compelling insureds or beneficiaries "to institute suits to recover amounts due under its policies by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in suits brought by them."

Ohio, Ohio Adm. Code 3901-1-54(G)(10): no settlement practices "that result in compelling first party claimants to litigate by offering substantially less than the amounts claimed compared to the amount ultimately recovered."

The same limb, in near-identical words, appears in Virginia (Va. Code 38.2-510(A)(7)), Illinois (215 ILCS 5/154.6(e)), New Mexico (NMSA 59A-16-20(G)), Pennsylvania (31 Pa. Code 146.9(b), in the comparative-negligence standards), and Washington, whose version, in ch. 284-30 WAC, is notable for naming arbitration and appraisal alongside suits, so the lowball-then-make-them-fight move is covered whichever forum the fight happens in.

Eight states read so far, one recurring sentence. Legislatures and insurance regulators did not write that sentence, independently, over decades, about conduct they considered imaginary. That is the honest weight of this section: the tactic is real enough to be named in law. What the statutes do NOT prove is how often any carrier does it today, we cannot measure that, and we will not imply that we can.

Does one delayed claim count? Depends entirely on the state

This is the part every secondary account skips, and it decides whether the law above applies to YOUR file. The states we have read answer "when does bad handling become a violation" in materially different ways: Washington's rule states its practices flat, with no frequency qualifier in the operative section. Pennsylvania's standards bind when violated "with a frequency that indicates a general business practice." Missouri reaches a single act if committed in "conscious disregard" of the rules, or a pattern. Oklahoma is Missouri's shape with a higher bar, "flagrantly and in conscious disregard," or frequency. Ohio defines "practice" so that "a single act is not a business practice," then lets the superintendent act on a single act only if it is "malicious, deliberate, conscious and knowing." Illinois is a two-stage test: the act must be "without just cause" AND either knowing or frequent. Kentucky builds a cure step into enforcement, the commissioner notes violations only after the insurer has been given the chance to pay the claim and interest. Virginia's frequency qualifier sits in the parent statute, not the regulation.

The full comparison, all 51 jurisdictions with the threshold clause quoted, is now its own page: one bad claim, or a pattern. The nine states named above are nine of the forty-seven read there. The practical point for a delayed claim: in some read states your single file can be a violation on its own; in others it becomes one only as part of a pattern, which is precisely why complaint records matter, because patterns are built out of filed complaints.

The clocks, where they exist

Delay is regulated most concretely as deadlines. In the states we have read, with the day-counting traps preserved: Pennsylvania requires acknowledgment within 10 working days, replies to pertinent communications within 10 working days, and investigation completion within 30 days of notification, after which the insurer owes a written explanation of the delay and updates. Washington runs 10 working days to acknowledge (15 for group contracts) and 30 days to complete investigation, with the reciprocal duty that everyone involved provide reasonable assistance. Kentucky's "days" are DEFINED as Monday through Friday excluding holidays, so its 15-day acknowledgment is business days, while its 30-day window to offer payment after proof of loss is expressly calendar days, the same rule uses both, and flattening them misstates the law. Missouri's STATUTE mostly declines to use numbers (acknowledgment "with reasonable promptness," decision "within a reasonable time," with one hard 15-calendar-day deadline for sending claim forms), and an earlier version of this page stopped there, which understated the state. Missouri's clocks are in its regulation. 20 CSR 100-1.050(1)(A): "Within fifteen (15) working days after the submission of all forms necessary to establish the nature and extent of any claim, the first-party claimant shall be advised of the acceptance or denial of the claim by the insurer." The same paragraph forbids denying a claim "on the grounds of a specific policy provision, condition or exclusion unless reference to that provision, condition or exclusion is included in the denial", in writing, with a copy kept in the file. And (1)(C) runs the clock on a slow investigation: the insurer must say within the original window that it needs longer, and while the investigation stays incomplete it must send a letter "within forty-five (45) days from the date of the initial notification and every forty-five (45) days after" giving the reasons. Read in full from the Secretary of State's own rule PDF. New Mexico adds two hard numbers nobody else we have read carries: once a catastrophic loss is declared, all catastrophic claims must be settled within 90 days of claim-number assignment, and, see below, day 46 is when unpaid amounts start costing the insurer interest.

If your claim has blown through these windows, the state complaint route exists precisely for that: find your state's regulator. A complaint that recites specific missed deadlines is a different document from a complaint that says "they are slow."

Two delay tricks banned by name

Stringing you toward the lawsuit deadline. Pennsylvania 31 Pa. Code 146.7(e) bars continuing negotiations toward a settlement with a claimant approaching a limitations deadline without giving written notice of it. The quiet run-out-the-clock move is separately named conduct there.

Stamping "final" on a partial payment. Kentucky's rule (Section 4(4)) says insurers "shall not indicate to a first-party claimant on a payment draft, check, or in an accompanying letter that payment is 'final' or 'a release' of any claim" unless the policy limit is paid or a genuine compromise settlement has been agreed. Ohio carries the same ban at (E)(5). The cash-this-and-you-are-done move: the one covered from the consumer side in total loss: why the first check is low, is prohibited by name in both.

Who can actually enforce any of this

Read the enforcement lines before imagining a lawsuit. Pennsylvania's official code page itself carries the holding: "There is no private cause of action under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act or these regulations." Kentucky's rule says on its face that a violation "shall be found only by the commissioner" and that the regulation creates no private cause of action. Ohio's says the same in its purpose clause. Virginia's statute says no violation creates a cause of action in favor of anyone but the Commission, while expressly preserving whatever ordinary legal claims you already had. Missouri, Illinois and Oklahoma do not answer the question in the sections we read, and we will not infer either way. The working rule in most read states: these provisions are a regulator's yardstick, and the free, real lever they give you is the complaint, which is also how "frequency" states accumulate the pattern the trigger requires.

New Mexico is the read state that breaks the mold, twice. Its courts recognise a private right of action for unfair claims practices, the official annotations to 59A-16-20 record it. And it PRICES delay: under 59A-16-21(B), an insurer that fails for 45 days after required proof of loss to pay what is justly due owes that amount with interest at one and a half times the New Mexico prime rate, accruing from day 46; under 59A-16-21(A), a resident whose settlement check is neither paid nor lawfully rejected within ten days has a cause of action for ten percent of the check, minimum five hundred dollars, plus costs and attorney fees. Elsewhere in our reading, delay is prohibited but costs the insurer nothing by rule; New Mexico attaches a number to it. (Oklahoma appears, on the title of one of its sections, to attach interest and an attorney fee to late payment, but that section, 36 O.S. 1219, is accident and health insurance only, read in full. Titles are not statutes; a car owner in Oklahoma gets neither.)

Tennessee deserves one sentence here even though its rule is about a specific dollar: its insurance department's bulletin on total-loss sales tax says the tax "should not be used as a bargaining chip in negotiating a settlement", the withhold-until-they-ask move, banned by name for that line item. It is quoted in the total-loss guide.

What enforcement produces, when it happens

The rules above are enforced by examination, and the examinations are public. Missouri's Department of Commerce and Insurance published a claims examination of a private passenger auto insurer covering 2017 through 2019, with an order signed in April 2026, note the gap between the conduct and the consequence, because that is what regulatory time looks like. From a population of 760 paid claims the examiners sampled 83 and published error ratios against the state's improper-claims-practice statute: 96.39% under one subsection, 67.47% under another. The findings are the small stuff this page is about: the 45-day letter explaining why an investigation needs longer, the accept-or-deny decision inside 15 working days, replies within ten. The order's financial consequence was a three thousand dollar voluntary forfeiture.

A second examination, of a different carrier, put times on the same failures. Missouri also examined Progressive Casualty Insurance Company's files for the same 2017 to 2019 window (examination no. 360266). Finding 27 records two claims that missed the 15-working-day accept-or-deny rule: in one, the insured was told of the denial "46 working days after the insured provided all requested information"; in the other, "the insured was informed 85 working days after the insured provided all requested information." That is roughly three times and nearly six times the window in 20 CSR 100-1.050(1)(A), measured from the day the insured had already handed over everything asked of them. Finding 24 adds three first-party denials where the company did not promptly give a reasonable and accurate written explanation of the basis for the denial, citing RSMo 375.1007(12). Finding 28 records four instances in a single claim with no reply inside ten working days to letters from attorneys for the insured and a third-party claimant.

That is worth holding in both hands. Delay is really regulated, really measured, and really documented by name, and the institutional price of a bad file is small enough that the rules matter mostly as leverage rather than as deterrent. Which is exactly why the complaint you file, and the dates you put in it, do more work than any argument about motive. The documents are quoted in adjuster scorecards and the personal licence.

What this page deliberately does not say

It does not say any carrier systematically denies or delays claims. One examination of one line in one state, however striking its error ratios, is not a measurement of an industry, and the report itself says it is a summary of non-compliance rather than a picture of the whole. It does not say your claim was mishandled; it gives you the texts against which that question gets answered. And it does not recommend hiring anyone. The mechanism BEHIND delay incentives (what adjusters are scored on, and what their personal licences have to do with it), is its own page. The repair-specific levers, including the pay-the-difference-or-name-a-shop rule that four states carry, are in when insurance won't pay for a proper repair.

Related

Sources

Every state claim above renders from our unfair-claims register, data/compliance/ucspa.json, where each row records the provision, the URL on the issuing state's own site, the read date, and verbatim text. The rows behind this page: Oklahoma 36 O.S. 1250.5 and 1250.3 (oscn.net); Virginia Va. Code 38.2-510 and 14VAC5-400-70 (law.lis.virginia.gov); Illinois 215 ILCS 5/154.5 and 5/154.6 and 50 Ill. Adm. Code 919.90 (ilga.gov); Missouri RSMo 375.1005 and 375.1007 (revisor.mo.gov); Ohio Adm. Code 3901-1-54 (codes.ohio.gov); New Mexico NMSA 59A-16-20 and 59A-16-21 (nmonesource.com); Pennsylvania 31 Pa. Code ch. 146 (pacodeandbulletin.gov); Washington ch. 284-30 WAC (app.leg.wa.gov); Kentucky's claims rule as recorded in the same register. States not named on this page are not characterised by it. The register holds 51 rows, and as of 2026-08-22 forty-seven of them are read end to end and verified first-party, and four are not read (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee), each with what stopped us named on the row. This page still discusses only the eight states whose compel-to-litigate limb it quotes; the other reads are in the register and the survey built from them is one bad claim, or a pattern. A page that named all 47 today would be a page written faster than it was read.

The examination figures come from the Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance's published market regulation actions, read 2026-08-15; the specific documents, the company names, and the reports' own "by exception" caveat are set out in adjuster scorecards and the personal licence. The second examination quoted here is Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Missouri examination no. 360266, claims portion only, read 2026-08-15; the stipulation resolving it is expressly not an admission.

Missouri's regulatory clocks quoted above come from 20 CSR 100-1.050, Standards for Prompt, Fair, and Equitable Settlement of Claims, read in full on 2026-08-15 from the Missouri Secretary of State's own rule PDF. That PDF sets the rules in two columns, so words broken across a line carry a soft hyphen; those are rejoined in the quotations and nothing else is changed. The correction it forced: this page previously said Missouri "mostly declines to use numbers at all", is left visible above rather than edited away.

This page is not legal advice, and deadlines have exceptions the full rules state.

General consumer information: not legal, insurance, or financial advice. Requirements, coverage, and practices vary by state, policy, and manufacturer.

Run a body shop? Your shop likely already has a page here, built from public records. Check it and claim it free: verifying only ever adds.
What does claiming add? It's free ›

Where this fits

Each link says what it is for. We add one only when a reader on this page has a real reason to need that page next.