Car insurance claims in North Dakota

North Dakota runs a GENUINE no-fault scheme under the Auto Accident Reparations Act, and the compulsory package has two halves. «The owner of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state, or the owner of a motor vehicle operated in this state by the owner or with the owner’s permission, shall continuously provide with respect to the motor vehicle … SECURITY FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND THE LIABILITIES COVERED UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE» (§ 26.1-41-02(1)) — first-party benefits AND liability cover, not one or the other, which is what distinguishes this row from Maine’s and New Hampshire’s small compulsory medical-payments coverage sitting beside an unrestricted tort action. An owner who drives or lets the car be driven «when the owner knows or should know that the owner has failed to comply» has the registration revoked or suspended; and more usefully for anyone hurt, «AN OWNER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH SECURITY IS REQUIRED WHO FAILS TO HAVE THE SECURITY IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF AN ACCIDENT IS ABSOLUTELY LIABLE AT LAW FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND HAS ALL THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A BASIC NO-FAULT INSURER under this chapter. THIS REMEDY IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY that an injured person may have against the owner» (§ 26.1-41-02(5)). A reform-by-deeming provision follows: «an insurance policy which purports to provide coverage for basic no-fault benefits or is sold with the representation that it fulfills the requirements of security as required by this chapter IS DEEMED TO INCLUDE ALL COVERAGE REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER», whatever it actually says (§ 26.1-41-02(6)).

The benefits have a headline and two hard sub-caps, and the headline alone misleads. «Basic no-fault benefits» means benefits for economic loss from accidental bodily injury, and «the maximum amount … payable for all economic loss incurred and resulting from accidental bodily injury to any one person as the result of any one accident MAY NOT EXCEED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, regardless of the number of persons entitled to the benefits or the number of basic no-fault insurers obligated to pay» — three times Hawaii’s $10,000 PIP — but «basic no-fault benefits payable MAY NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS PER WEEK PER PERSON prorated for any lesser period for work loss or survivors’ income loss, OR THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS for funeral, cremation, and burial expenses» (§ 26.1-41-01(2)). The $30,000 cannot be multiplied by stacking or by the number of insurers. Work loss itself is discounted: «“work loss” means EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of loss of income from work an injured person who would normally be employed in gainful activity during the period of disability would have performed had the person not been injured, REDUCED BY ANY INCOME FROM SUBSTITUTE WORK ACTUALLY PERFORMED by the injured person OR BY INCOME THE INJURED PERSON WOULD HAVE EARNED IN AVAILABLE APPROPRIATE SUBSTITUTE WORK THAT THE INJURED PERSON WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING BUT UNREASONABLY FAILED TO UNDERTAKE. Work loss does not include any loss after death» (§ 26.1-41-01(24)).

SUING THE OTHER DRIVER IS RESTRICTED BUT NOT CLOSED, AND THE SECOND HALF OF THE EXEMPTION IS THE PART A SUMMARY DROPS. «In any action against a secured person to recover damages because of accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership or operation of a secured motor vehicle in this state, the secured person is exempt from liability to pay damages for: a. NONECONOMIC LOSS UNLESS THE INJURY IS A SERIOUS INJURY. b. ECONOMIC LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF ALL BASIC NO-FAULT BENEFITS PAID OR TO BECOME PAYABLE for such injury under this chapter after subtracting the same elements of loss recoverable under any workforce safety and insurance law» (§ 26.1-41-08(1)). So pain and suffering are barred unless the injury is «serious», but ECONOMIC LOSS IS BARRED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFITS PAID OR PAYABLE — which means economic loss above the $30,000 ceiling, or above the $150-a-week work-loss cap, REMAINS RECOVERABLE IN TORT EVEN WHERE THE INJURY IS NOT SERIOUS. Do not write that a North Dakota claimant with a minor injury has no tort claim at all. The exemption also fails entirely against a claimant who would not qualify for benefits under § 26.1-41-06 or who is excluded by § 26.1-41-07 — neither section was opened, so the threshold cannot be described completely here. «Serious injury» has four limbs: «an accidental bodily injury which results in DEATH, DISMEMBERMENT, SERIOUS AND PERMANENT DISFIGUREMENT OR DISABILITY BEYOND SIXTY DAYS, OR MEDICAL EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS», and the deeming provision closes the obvious gap — a person given care free or at a discount «is deemed to have sustained a serious injury if a court determines that the usual and customary value of the services exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars» (§ 26.1-41-01(21)). NOTE THAT THE MONETARY LIMB IS MEASURED IN MEDICAL EXPENSES, unlike Hawaii’s, which is measured in PIP benefits incurred; the distinction must not be blurred.

Shared fault bars recovery once the claimant’s fault is «as great as the combined fault of all other persons who contribute to the injury», so a fifty-fifty crash recovers nothing; otherwise damages fall in proportion, the jury apportions fault to every person who contributed «whether or not a party», and liability between defendants is «several only, and is not joint» outside concerted action (§ 32-03.2-02). But there is a carve-out that fits the ordinary fender-bender exactly and appears in no other jurisdiction in this dataset: in a motor vehicle accident in which TWO persons are at fault, a property-damage claim of not more than $5,000 direct and $1,000 indirect «may not be diminished in proportion to the amount of contributing fault attributable to the person recovering, or otherwise», provided «the percentage of fault of the person against whom recovery is sought is OVER FIFTY PERCENT» — the three conditions being conjunctive, and personal-injury damages expressly outside the section (§ 32-03.2-02.1). On timing, North Dakota gives SIX YEARS on the tort side — one clock for both the injury claim and the vehicle claim, each from accrual, and six years on a contract too (§ 28-01-16(1), (4), (5)) — which distinguishes it from Idaho’s 2/3 split and Montana’s 3/2. The first-party claim is different and shorter and must not be merged with it: an action for no-fault benefits must be brought «not later than two years after the injured person suffers the loss and either knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, that the loss was caused by the accident, or not later than four years after the accident, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER», and where benefits have been paid, within four years of the last payment (§ 26.1-41-19(1)) — a section that governs benefit claims «notwithstanding any limitation prescribed elsewhere in the laws of this state».

The compulsory liability limits are $25,000 for bodily injury or death of one person, $50,000 where two or more are injured or killed, and $25,000 for property damage, covering any permissive user throughout the United States and Canada and exclusive of interest and costs (§ 39-16.1-11(2)(b)). UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE MUST BE IN EVERY POLICY AT THOSE BODILY-INJURY LIMITS AND THE MANDATE IS NON-REJECTABLE — there is no rejection right in the section at all, unlike Idaho, Montana, Maine and Wyoming — with higher limits available on request but not required above «the insured’s bodily injury liability limits, or one hundred thousand dollars per person and three hundred thousand dollars per accident, … whichever is less» (§ 26.1-40-15.2(1)–(2)). AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE IS COMPULSORY TOO: «the insurer shall also provide underinsured motorist coverage AT LIMITS EQUAL TO THE LIMITS OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE» (§ 26.1-40-15.3(1)) — so North Dakota compels both halves where Montana compels only the uninsured half. ONE CITATION TRAP MUST BE RECORDED BECAUSE IT CATCHES EXACTLY THE READER WHO SEARCHES BY TITLE: §§ 26.1-40-14 and 26.1-40-15, whose titles still read «Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage — Compulsory — Stacking not permitted» and «Rights of insurer making payments…», ARE BOTH MARKED «REPEALED BY S.L. 1989, CH. 375, § 8». The sections whose titles best match the rule are the repealed ones, and NO UM/UIM MANDATE MAY BE PUBLISHED FROM THEM; the operative provisions are the decimal-suffixed §§ 26.1-40-15.1 through 15.7, which is where every UM/UIM statement on this row comes from. A vehicle is «underinsured» where its liability limit «is less than the applicable limit for underinsured motorist coverage under the insured’s policy» or «has been reduced by payments to other persons injured in the accident» below that limit — the multi-claimant squeeze — and «uninsured» where there is no policy, or «the insurer or issuer thereof refuses to provide coverage, denies coverage, or is or becomes insolvent», or «the identity of the owner or operator cannot be ascertained and the bodily injury … is either caused by ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTACT … OR IS INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY A DISINTERESTED WITNESS» (§ 26.1-40-15.1(2)–(3)). That last condition is the most commonly litigated in hit-and-run claims and North Dakota states it IN THE ALTERNATIVE rather than requiring contact. Note the chapter’s definition of «motor vehicle» for these sections EXCLUDES VEHICLES OVER TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS. In any uninsured or underinsured claim «the insured and the insurer EACH BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE’S OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES … unless the insurance contract specifically provides otherwise or the insurance company is found to have acted in bad faith. IT IS NEITHER A CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOR BAD FAITH FOR AN INSURER TO CONTEST AND PRESS ALL DEFENSES THAT THE UNINSURED MOTORIST COULD PRESS» (§§ 26.1-40-15.2(4), 26.1-40-15.3(3)) — the opposite default from Vermont’s § 941(e), where the insurer’s subrogation recovery is reduced by a fair share of the costs of getting it.

NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR DECISION DEADLINE IS PUBLISHED FOR NORTH DAKOTA. The unfair claim settlement practices provision was read in full, all twelve paragraphs, and contains no number of days: the duties are «failing to acknowledge with reasonable promptness pertinent communications with respect to claims», «failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims», «not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims submitted in which liability has become reasonably clear» and «failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss has been completed», all of it biting only «if done without just cause and if performed with a frequency indicating a general business practice»; a search of the whole chapter for «days» returns five hits, NONE OF THEM IN THAT SUBSECTION (§ 26.1-04-03(9)). One paragraph is worth publishing because a reader can check it: the insurer may not refuse «payment of claims solely on the basis of the insured’s request to do so without making an independent evaluation of the insured’s liability based upon all available information». So the only numeric claims clock in North Dakota law read for this row is the thirty days for no-fault benefits, which is a first-party payment duty; the NORTH DAKOTA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 45 (INSURANCE) WAS NOT OPENED AT ALL, so this row does not claim that no administrative timetable exists — only that none was read.

After a crash the threshold is the highest in this dataset. «The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any individual, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO AN APPARENT EXTENT OF AT LEAST FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS, shall immediately give notice of the accident to the local police department if the accident occurs within a municipality, otherwise to the office of the county sheriff or the state highway patrol. A driver who violates this section MUST BE ASSESSED A FINE OF FIFTY DOLLARS. The name of the motor vehicle insurance policy carrier and the policy number … MUST BE FURNISHED TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER investigating the accident. If the driver does not have the required information concerning insurance …, then WITHIN FIVE DAYS of the accident the driver shall supply that information to the driver’s license division», and «the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident with an UNDOMESTICATED ANIMAL resulting in property damage only to the driver’s vehicle IS EXEMPT from the notice requirements of this section, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE» (§ 39-08-09(1)–(3)) — which in North Dakota is not a marginal case. THE MOST CLAIMANT-USEFUL SCENE DUTY IN THIS DATASET SITS BESIDE IT, AND IT IS WHAT MAKES THE FIVE-DAY FOLLOW-UP INTELLIGIBLE: North Dakota requires THE INSURER’S NAME TO BE HANDED OVER AT THE SCENE IN EVERY SITUATION. A driver in any injury, death or vehicle-damage accident «shall give the driver’s name and address, AND THE NAME OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE POLICY CARRIER OF THE DRIVER AND OWNER, as well as the registration number», exhibit the licence on request if available, and «render to any person injured … reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making of arrangements for the carrying, of the person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital» (§ 39-08-06); and on striking an UNATTENDED vehicle the driver must «either locate and notify the operator or owner … or shall leave in a conspicuous place in the vehicle struck A WRITTEN NOTICE giving the name and address, as well as the name of the motor vehicle insurance policy carrier … AND A STATEMENT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COLLISION» (§ 39-08-07). Note the penalty asymmetry: failing to stop for property damage is a class B misdemeanour (§ 39-08-05), but hitting an unattended vehicle and not leaving the note is a CLASS A one. Complaints go to the North Dakota Insurance Department’s own online Consumer Complaint form, which is itself the authorisation to investigate, and the Department warns in its own words that the complaint database «is for complaints only» and not for enquiries. WHETHER INHERENT DIMINISHED VALUE IS RECOVERABLE IN NORTH DAKOTA HAS NOT YET BEEN VERIFIED AGAINST A PRIMARY TEXT AND IS NOT STATED HERE: none of the seven chapters read uses «diminution» or «diminished value», but no full-text search across the Century Code was run, the Administrative Code was not opened and no opinion was read — a reading negative over seven chapters and nothing more. ONE ADJACENT FINDING MUST NOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE: § 32-03.2-02.1 speaks of «direct and indirect» physical property damages, and «indirect» there is A CAP INSIDE A COMPARATIVE-FAULT CARVE-OUT, not a recognition of diminished value.