Coalition Against Insurance Fraud

Anti-fraud Requirements

Click here to search regulations database.
  Fraud Warning Mandatory
Reporting
SIU
Required
Annual
Reporting
Auto
Inspection
Fraud
Plan
Alaska M        
Arizona S        
Arkansas S    
California M 6
Colorado S  
Conn.
Delaware S/bc        
D.C. S  
Florida S 2   3 4
Georgia          
Hawaii S    
Idaho S        
Indiana S          
Iowa          
Kansas
Kentucky S    
Louisiana S        
Maine S    
Maryland    
Mass.        
Michigan          
Minnesota S 1      
Missouri          
Montana        
Nevada          
N.H. S    
New Jersey S 5
New Mexico S  
New York S/bc
N.D
N.C.          
Ohio S      
Oklahoma S        
Oregon Voluntary        
Penn. M    
Rhode Island M/bc 1      
S.C.          
Tennessee s  
Texas          
Utah M1/bc        
Vermont
Virginia S        
Washington S    
W.V. S
Wisconsin   1        

 


1 - Applies only to workers compensation.
2 - For insurers writing more than $10 million in premium.
3 - In selected counties; No photo inspection required.
4 - For insurers writing less than $10 million in premium.
5 - For insurers insuring more than 1,000 vehicles
6 - Requirement was repealed effective 1/1/99.
M - Fraud warning language must not deviate from statute language.
S - Fraud warning language may be similar to statute language. Language must be approved by insurance department in Florida and New Jersey.
bc - warnings on the backs of benefit checks. Mandatory language is required in New York, Rhode Island and Delaware.

A complete copy of the guide, Regulatory Requirements for Insurance Fraud Activities, can be downloaded in the member-only section.

If you are aware of pending or existing regulation not contained here, please send updates to Howard Goldblatt, Director of Government Affairs, Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, 1012 14th St., N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20005. Phone: 202-393-7332; Fax: 202-318-9189. E-mail: Howard@InsuranceFraud.org.

This document should serve only as a guide in complying with regulatory requirements and should not serve as an alternative to legal counsel.

›Back to Top

 
 
About Us | Legislation | Hall of Shame | e-Newsletter | Members Only | Site Index | FraudBlog | En Español