Get the fair value you deserve for your totaled vehicle in Virginia

Virginia regulates first-party automobile total losses through three layered authorities: the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices statute at Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-510, the implementing investigation-and-resolution-of-claims regulation at 14 VAC 5-400 (with the auto-insurance-specific provisions at 14 VAC 5-400-80), and the bad-faith fee-shifting provision at Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-209. Virginia does not impose a separate licensing requirement on a policyholder's appraiser invoked under the policy's appraisal clause. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-510 — Unfair Claim Settlement Practices. The statute defines fourteen prohibited acts when committed in conscious disregard of the policy or with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, including: misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions; failing to acknowledge and act with reasonable promptness on claim communications; failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims; refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information; failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss requirements have been completed; not attempting in good faith to make prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear; compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by the insureds; and failing to promptly settle claims in which liability has become reasonably clear under one portion of the insurance policy in order to influence settlements under other portions. § 38.2-510 does not create a private right of action; enforcement runs through the SCC Bureau of Insurance. 14 VAC 5-400 — Rules Governing Unfair Claim Settlement Practices. Virginia's claim-handling regulation establishes claim-acknowledgment timing and general claim-handling standards; the auto-insurance-specific provisions live at 14 VAC 5-400-80 ("Claims settlement standards applicable to automobile insurance"). Key 14 VAC 5-400-80 provisions: (A) The insurer must not recommend the claimant make a claim under the claimant's own policy when liability is reasonably clear. (B) The insurer must not require unreasonable travel for inspection, estimate, or repair. (C) Subrogation recoveries must include the deductible; recoveries are proportionately shared. (D) The insurer's repair estimate must be reasonable; a total-loss valuation must be provided to the claimant upon request. (E) Betterment and depreciation deductions must be itemized and specified as to dollar amount. (F) Repair-shop standards apply when the insurer elects to repair. (G) Reasonable notice must be given before terminating storage payment. (H) Reasonable towing payments must be made. (I) Reasonable time for rental/transportation payments must be allowed. Virginia's 14 VAC 5-400 chapter does NOT contain a closed-list valuation framework (two-comparables / two-dealer-quotations / statistically-valid-source) or an express 30-day right-of-recourse provision; framings of that kind have appeared in earlier drafts of this entry but are imports from other states' regulations (notably NY 11 NYCRR 216.7 and pre-2018 Virginia regulatory drafts) and do not reflect current Virginia law. The 2017 amendment to 14 VAC 5-400 (effective January 1, 2018) was the major rewrite of this chapter and did not add a closed-list valuation framework. 14 VAC 5-400-50 — Acknowledgment of Pertinent Communications. (Note: this section is captioned and covers 15-calendar-day acknowledgment of claim notices and related timing requirements, NOT total-loss valuation methodology — the substantive auto-claim framework lives at 14 VAC 5-400-80 as set out above.) Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-209 — Attorney's Fees in Actions Against Insurers. In any civil case in which an insured individual sues their insurance company for a refusal to pay a claim, and the court determines that the insurance company, not acting in good faith, has refused to pay the claim, the court may award the insured attorney's fees and other reasonable expenses, including expert-witness fees, incurred in the action, plus prejudgment interest. The recoverable attorney's fees are limited by the amount of disputed coverage. The judge — not the jury — decides the bad-faith question for fee-shift purposes (see REVI, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 290 Va. 203 (2015)). The "not in good faith" standard is the operational test; documented unfair claim settlement practices under § 38.2-510 and documented 14 VAC 5-400-80 violations feed directly into the § 38.2-209 analysis. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-1600 (definition of "rebuilt vehicle") + § 46.2-1602.2 — Salvage Title Threshold. A late-model vehicle for which the cost of repair to its pre-accident condition (excluding engine, transmission, and drive-axle repair costs) exceeds 75% of its actual cash value before the loss must be branded as a salvage vehicle; the threshold is referenced in the "rebuilt vehicle" definition at § 46.2-1600 and operationalized through the insurance-company salvage-certificate filing duties at § 46.2-1602.2 (late-model vehicles) and § 46.2-1605 (non-late-model). The procedural salvage-certificate-for-unrecovered-stolen-vehicle statute at § 46.2-1603 is a related but distinct provision. Virginia does not impose a separate licensing requirement on a policyholder's appraiser invoked under the policy's appraisal clause.

Virginia's first-party bad-faith doctrine is anchored in Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-209, which the General Assembly added to the Insurance Article as a fee-shifting alternative to a common-law tort of bad faith. Virginia courts have declined to recognize a separate common-law tort of first-party bad faith — see A&E Supply Co., Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 798 F.2d 669 (4th Cir. 1986), a Fourth Circuit case applying Virginia law (Erie prediction) that the Virginia Supreme Court has not displaced — making § 38.2-209 the operative statutory remedy. (Note: an earlier version of this entry also cited "Burchfield v. Selective Insurance Co., 88 Va. Cir. 459 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2014)"; that case does not appear in any standard Virginia case-law database and has been removed.) REVI, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 290 Va. 203 (2015), is the leading modern Virginia Supreme Court decision on § 38.2-209's procedural posture: the judge — not the jury — decides the bad-faith question for fee-shift purposes. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society v. Norman, 237 Va. 33 (1989), is cited for the proposition that the § 38.2-209 inquiry is whether the insurer's coverage position was reasonable under all the circumstances (reasonable does not mean ultimately correct; it means the position had a colorable basis at the time it was taken). The "reasonable / colorable basis" framing is consistent with how subsequent Virginia courts have summarized the standard. Virginia courts apply the "not acting in good faith" standard fact-intensively, treating documented § 38.2-510 unfair-claim-settlement-practice violations and 14 VAC 5-400-80 noncompliance as evidence undermining the colorable-basis defense. In the auto-claim context, recent multistate class actions targeting "typical-negotiation adjustment" and similar undocumented Audatex/CCC line items have been pleaded as 14 VAC 5-400-80 regulatory violations (specifically the (E) requirement that betterment and depreciation deductions be itemized and specified as to dollar amount) and § 38.2-209 fee-shift cases. Virginia's documentation standards are explicit and the fee-shift creates real economic exposure for insurers. Important corrections from earlier drafts: Virginia's 14 VAC 5-400 chapter does NOT contain a closed-list valuation framework (two-comparables / two-dealer-quotations / statistically-valid-source) or an express 30-day right-of-recourse provision; the substantive auto-claim provisions live at 14 VAC 5-400-80, not at 14 VAC 5-400-50 (which addresses claim acknowledgment timing). Earlier framings of "14 VAC 5-400-50(A)-(D)" containing closed-list / sales-tax / right-of-recourse provisions match other states' regulations (notably NY 11 NYCRR 216.7) and do not reflect current Virginia law.