Key takeaways
- “Never call your insurer” is state-specific advice given without a state. It is roughly right in Texas, Tennessee and Colorado, and materially wrong in eight states — Maryland, Delaware, Oregon, Utah, New Jersey, North Dakota, Connecticut and New Mexico — where a call about your actual damage is protected if you are not claiming.
- Almost every one of these laws restricts how an inquiry is USED, not whether it is RECORDED. Virginia is the exception and it does not take effect until 1 January 2027. Two state departments — Alabama's and Utah's — warn that discussing an actual loss may be logged as a claim even when nothing is ever paid.
- In most states a claim that paid you nothing is still a claim. Seven jurisdictions reach zero-payment claims — Connecticut, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, Maryland, Minnesota and Michigan. Connecticut alone also reaches small ones, barring action under § 38a-316d(c) on a claim paying less than $500. This takeaway said four until an audit found three more.
- Oregon is the only state that writes the exchange into statute — but read its direction. The insurer “may rely on the affirmation to rebut a later assertion to the contrary”, which arms the insurer. If you are only asking, saying so removes the ambiguity. If you might claim, do not phone to ‘just ask’ — get an estimate, decide, then report it as a claim or let it go.
- Get a repair estimate before you telephone anyone. If the number is near your deductible there may be nothing worth claiming — which is NAIC's own advice — and you have then avoided the question entirely.
Not sure whether to call your insurer or not? A licensed agent can talk through what your policy actually says before you pick up the phone.
Call [PENDING][PENDING]. Calls are answered by [PENDING], a licensed insurance agency (NPN [PENDING]). HomeCoverDesk is not affiliated with any insurer. Calls may be recorded or monitored for quality and training purposes. Our partner does not offer every insurer or every product available in your state.The advice everyone repeats, and where it is actually true
Never call your insurer to ask, the advice goes — even the question goes on your record. It is one of the most repeated pieces of homeowners advice on the internet, and it is almost never given with a state attached. (That sentence is our summary of a piece of folk advice, not a quotation of anybody. We have not put it in quotation marks because there is no single source to attribute it to.)
It needs one. At least seventeen states have enacted law restricting what an insurer may do with a claim inquiry, and they do not agree with each other on the question that decides whether the advice applies to you: does the protection cover a call about your damage, or only a general question about what the policy covers?
In Texas, Tennessee and Colorado the common advice is roughly right — each protects general questions and stops where the question concerns the damage itself. In eight states it is materially wrong: Maryland, Delaware, Oregon, Utah, New Jersey, North Dakota, Connecticut and New Mexico. Those eight reach the call about the actual loss, so long as you are not making a claim. Oregon says so in the statute itself, and Maryland uses the strictest test of any of them.
And in Colorado the trap runs the other way: the same section that protects inquiries defines “claim”, at § 10-4-110.8(3)(b), to include “a loss reserve established by the insurer” and “a loss adjustment expense incurred by the insurer”. Subsection (2) reads: “An insurer may only provide information regarding claims to an entity that compiles or monitors personal claim or loss experience shared by insurers for underwriting or rating purposes.” Put together, an inquiry on which the insurer opened a reserve is capable of being reported to a database like CLUE, whatever you were paid.
Two honest qualifications, because an earlier version of this page dropped one of them. First, we originally described subsection (2) as letting an insurer report claims. It says “may only” — it is a restriction on insurers, and on the competing reading it permits only CLAIMS information to be shared, which would cut in the homeowner's favor rather than against. We do not know which reading a Colorado court would take.
Second, we put the counter-argument to the whole framing ourselves, because it is a real one. Colorado's protection is worded against an ‘actual claim’, and the statute never defines ‘actual’. An insurer could argue the word is there precisely to keep a paper-only loss reserve out. The definitions also open with “unless the context otherwise requires”. We think the risk is real enough to warn you about; we do not think it is settled.
| State | What is protected | Does it cover a call about YOUR damage? |
|---|---|---|
| Maryland Ins. § 27-501(p) — ADDED BY AUDIT | The strongest test in the table, and we first published that Maryland had nothing. An insurer may not refuse to underwrite, increase a premium, or cancel or refuse to renew “based in whole or in part” on an inquiry that does not result in payment of a claim. The definition expressly reaches a communication “about whether the policy provides coverage for a particular loss” | Yes. And note the test: most statutes here say ‘solely’, which an insurer can satisfy by naming any second reason. ‘In whole or in part’ closes that door. We first wrote ‘every other statute’ here and that was false — California uses the same formula, and Delaware, New Jersey, Oregon and Wyoming avoid ‘solely’ altogether, Wyoming by barring reliance “in any manner” |
| Virginia § 38.2-2114(I)(16) — ADDED BY AUDIT, SUMMARIZER-SOURCED, NOT IN FORCE UNTIL 1 JAN 2027 | Two things at once, and this page first reported only one. It is the only law we found that reaches RECORDING: “An insurer shall not report any inquiry as a claim to a loss history database…” It also restricts USE — subdivision (16) sits under a chapeau barring refusal to renew “solely because of” the listed factors, and an inquiry is one of them | Partly, and not yet. Three limits the first version of this row missed. It reaches refusal to renew only — not cancellation, premium or declination. It covers owner-occupied dwellings only, so a landlord, condo or tenant policy is outside it. And the definition of ‘inquiry’ excludes a communication that notifies the insurer of a loss or that provides “information indicating an increase in the hazard insured against” — so saying the roof is now tarped may put the call outside the bar |
| Delaware 18 Del. C. § 4131 (2008) | An inquiry “regarding a homeowners policy or a loss under that policy” may not be treated as a claim for underwriting decisions. “An inquiry is any contact initiated by an insured that is not the filing of a claim to an insurer” | Yes — the broadest definition we found anywhere. Any contact that is not a filing |
| Oregon ORS 746.686(3) — SINGLE-PASS | An inquiry about “terms, conditions or coverage” — “including an inquiry about an actual loss or claim filing process” — may not be used to decide whether to issue or renew, or to set rates, if you are not making a claim | Yes, expressly. And Oregon gives you a script — see below |
| Utah § 31A-22-1308(2)(a)(ii) — SINGLE-PASS | No adverse eligibility or rate decision based on “a telephone call or other inquiry by an insured of a loss if the loss did not result in the insured requesting payment of a claim” | Yes. Turns on whether you REQUESTED payment, not on whether any was made |
| New Jersey N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4.1; N.J.A.C. 11:1-20.4(e)1 | An inquiry about the policy “or coverage for a particular loss under that policy” may not be categorized as a claim for the purpose of determining adverse claims experience. This is a STATUTE, and the regulation is made “pursuant to” it | Yes — ‘a particular loss’ is the operative phrase, and § 17:29B-4.1(b) carries penalties of up to $25,000 per violation where the insurer knew or should have known. An earlier version of this page told readers this was only a regulation. That was wrong |
| North Dakota N.D.C.C. § 26.1-25.2-03 | Six enumerated events an insurer may not use to surcharge, decline, non-renew or cancel. Three matter here: an inquiry into type or level of coverage; “An insured's inquiry regarding coverage for a loss if the insured files no claim”; and a claim where the insurer “conducts no investigation of a claim or initiates no other claim activity”. A fourth covers a claim paid at zero — see the next table | Yes |
| Connecticut § 38a-316d(c), P.A. 13-138 | The widest reach of any single sentence we found. No cancellation, non-renewal or premium increase based solely on inquiries, or on a claim paying under $500, or paying nothing at all. Exception where more than one non-catastrophic claim paid out in the preceding three policy years | Yes, on the plain words — and this page first graded it ‘aftermath only’, which the sentence does not support. The first limb is “inquiries made on such policy” with no subject-matter limit at all; the $500 and zero-payment qualifier attaches to the SECOND limb, about claims. Its weakness is the word ‘solely’, not its scope |
| North Carolina § 58-36-115 (S.L. 2004-111) | No termination, refusal to write or renew, or consent-to-rate based solely on an inquiry that does not become a claim, or a claim closed without payment where the notice of loss “was only an inquiry regarding policy provisions” | Partly — and not for the reason we first gave. The statute bars action based solely on “either of the following”, so the two limbs are independent alternatives; this page originally said the second was conditioned on the first. What actually narrows the second limb is its own proviso: the notice of loss must have been only an inquiry, and no payment asked for |
| New Mexico § 59A-16-20(P) — eff. 20 Jun 2025 | The newest in the country. A prohibited unfair claims practice to treat an inquiry “relating to damage or loss” as a claim — but only where all three elements hold: the facts are not covered, no payment is made, and there is no deceptive practice | Yes, within those three elements |
| Wyoming § 26-23-108 | Claims history used against you must exclude customer inquiries — defined in the same subsection as calls or requests for information made by “the named insured or a person who would be a named insured under the policy”, “that reference the terms, conditions or coverage afforded under an insurance contract and do not result in claims being filed or paid”. Strongest remedy of any state: the commissioner may order reinstatement with no lapse and refund an unauthorised increase with 10% annual interest | Ambiguous — turns on the outcome, not the subject |
| Minnesota § 65A.285 and Minn. R. 2880.0200 — SINGLE-PASS; the rule is SUMMARIZER-SOURCED | No surcharge — “surcharge” is defined to include removal of a claim-free discount — solely from a consumer inquiry, defined as a communication that does not result in a paid claim and concerns general terms or coverage. The definition then widens: “The term includes a question concerning the process for filing a claim and whether a policy will cover a loss”. Separately, Minn. R. 2880.0200 is a closed list of the only grounds for refusing to renew | Probably — and more than we first said. Minnesota carries the same widening sentence as Texas without the Texas carve-out for specific damage that triggers an investigation. This page originally quoted the definition's first sentence, stopped, and graded it No. It also said Minnesota reached surcharges only; the rule reaches non-renewal |
| Michigan MCL 500.2117 — ADDED BY AUDIT, SUMMARIZER-SOURCED, ONE HOST | Never uses the word ‘inquiry’, and gets there anyway. An insurer “shall not refuse to insure, refuse to continue to insure, or limit the coverage available to an eligible person for home insurance, except in accordance with underwriting rules established under this section”. The permitted claim-based ground counts only “Three paid claims” within three years above a dollar floor | Probably yes, by exclusion. If the permitted grounds are exclusive and none of them is an inquiry, an inquiry cannot support refusal. Read the marks on this row before relying on it — one host, summarizing channel, and ‘eligible person’ is a defined term in MCL 500.2103 that we have not read |
| Colorado § 10-4-110.8 — SINGLE-PASS | No cancellation or non-renewal solely because of an inquiry “not related to an actual claim to the property insured”. Read § 10-4-110.8(3)(b) before relying on this — “Claim” there includes “a loss reserve established by the insurer” and “a loss adjustment expense incurred by the insurer”, and that definition is scoped “As used in this section”. And read § 10-4-110.8(3)(e), which we missed for a full day: “‘Inquiry’ means a request for information regarding the terms, conditions, or coverages afforded under an insurance contract” | No — and the plain reason is the definition, not the clever route we first took. § 10-4-110.8(3)(e) limits ‘inquiry’ to a request about terms, conditions or coverages: your damage is not that. Beyond that, under § 10-4-110.8(2) an insurer “may only provide information regarding claims” to a database like CLUE — a restriction whose reach here is genuinely arguable — so an inquiry on which it merely opened a reserve is reportable. The honest caveat: subsection (1) protects against an ‘actual’ claim, a term the statute never defines, and the definitions carry “unless the context otherwise requires” |
| Texas §§ 551.113 and 544.553 | Two statutes: one bars using an inquiry for declination, non-renewal or cancellation, the other bars it in underwriting guidelines and rating. TDI has restated both in bulletins after winter storm Uri and Hurricane Beryl | No. The definition excludes a question that “concerns specific damage that has occurred and that results in an investigation or claim” |
| Tennessee § 56-7-113 (2014) | No premium increase or cancellation solely on the basis of an inquiry “regarding the insured's homeowner's insurance policy or a loss under the policy”. But § 56-7-113(a)(3) defines ‘inquiry’ narrowly — general terms, and whether a policy covers a type of event | Contestable, and we grade it No. Be aware the operative sentence carries almost Delaware's words — ‘or a loss under the policy’ — which we show you in the Delaware row and grade Yes there. It is the DEFINITION that pulls Tennessee back, and § 56-7-113(c) lets the insurer treat the call as a claim if an investigation finds a changed condition |
| California § 791.12(c) — SINGLE-PASS | No adverse underwriting decision based on a previous inquiry about coverage that did not become a claim — but the sentence carries two limits, not one. The policy must be “a residential fire or property insurance policy”, and the information must have reached the insurer “from an insurance-support organization whose primary source of information is insurance institutions” | No — and note what the second limit does. § 791.02(l) excludes insurance institutions and agents from ‘insurance-support organization’, so an insurer's own internal note of your call sits outside this protection entirely |
The distinction that matters more than any of the statutes
Almost every law on this page restricts how an inquiry may be used. Only one of them stops it being recorded, and it is not in force yet.
Virginia is the exception, from 1 January 2027: “An insurer shall not report any inquiry as a claim to a loss history database maintained by a consumer reporting agency or insurance support organization.” That is the only sentence we found anywhere that reaches the entry itself. This page said no such law existed until an adversarial audit found it, and the correction matters more than the finding: a structural claim stated as a universal is one counter-example away from being false.
That gap is where people get hurt, and two state insurance departments say so plainly — Alabama's and Utah's. Alabama's, in its consumer guide to CLUE reports: “Consumers contacting their company or their agent to discuss an actual loss might be considered reporting a claim, even if the company does not end up making a claim payment.” Utah's department publishes near-identical wording. Washington's puts the same point from the other side — LexisNexis “advises insurance companies to not report claims information when you contact them to simply ask a question about coverage or your deductible”.
Read that carefully. The advice to insurers is about simple coverage questions. A conversation about damage that has actually happened is a different thing, and whether it becomes a claim is decided in the moment by the person taking the call.
So the honest position is narrower than either “never call” or “calling is free”: a general question about coverage is very unlikely to become a claim. A conversation about your damage can become one anywhere, and in most states a claim that pays you nothing is still a claim.
| Jurisdiction | What it does about zero-payment claims |
|---|---|
| Connecticut | Reaches furthest. Bars action based solely on a claim “that resulted in a loss coverage payment by the insurer of less than five hundred dollars or in no loss coverage payment”. Small claims as well as zero ones. Subject to an exception where more than one non-catastrophic claim paid out in the previous three policy years |
| North Carolina | Covers a claim “closed without payment” — but only where the notice of loss “was only an inquiry regarding policy provisions, and no claim for payment was requested”. If you asked for money, the limb does not help you |
| North Dakota | Two independent routes, and this page first reported only one. § 26.1-25.2-03(4) bars using “A claim if the insurer makes no payment to or on behalf of the insured” — a direct payment test, subject only to there being no deceptive practice. Separately, § 26.1-25.2-03(3) bars a claim where the insurer “conducts no investigation of a claim or initiates no other claim activity”. Alongside Connecticut this is the cleanest zero-payment protection in the survey |
| New Mexico | Covers it inside a three-element test — facts not covered, no payment made, no deceptive practice. All three, not any one. And a fourth element sits above them: § 59A-16-20's opening words reach only practices “knowingly committed or performed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice”, so a single mislogged inquiry may not be a violation at all |
| Maryland ADDED 26 Aug 2026 | Ins. § 27-501(p)(2) bars adverse action based “in whole or in part” on an inquiry “that does not result in the payment of a claim”. Reaches refusal to underwrite, premium, cancellation and non-renewal. We had recorded Maryland as having no such law |
| Minnesota ADDED 26 Aug 2026 | Minn. R. 2880.0200 lists the ONLY permitted grounds for refusing to renew. Item G counts two or more losses — but expressly “not to include … losses for which no payment was made by the insurer”, nor losses from lightning, wind or hail, nor losses 80% recovered by subrogation |
| Everywhere else | A claim that paid nothing is still a claim. This is the gap most consumer advice misses entirely, and it is the reason the ‘just ask, it costs nothing’ framing is unsafe outside the seven jurisdictions above |
| Colorado, specifically | Actively runs the other way. The statutory definition of “claim” in the same section that protects inquiries includes “a loss reserve established by the insurer” and “a loss adjustment expense incurred by the insurer”. The file being opened is enough |
Trying to work out whether a loss is worth claiming? A licensed agent can talk it through with you.
Call [PENDING][PENDING]. Calls are answered by [PENDING], a licensed insurance agency (NPN [PENDING]). HomeCoverDesk is not affiliated with any insurer. Calls may be recorded or monitored for quality and training purposes. Our partner does not offer every insurer or every product available in your state.A claim that paid nothing is usually still a claim
This is the part almost no consumer page covers, and it is where the protection stops in most of the country.
Seven jurisdictions reach it. Connecticut goes furthest, barring action under § 38a-316d(c) based solely on a claim “that resulted in a loss coverage payment by the insurer of less than five hundred dollars or in no loss coverage payment” — small claims as well as zero ones. North Dakota reaches it twice over, at § 26.1-25.2-03(4) for a claim on which the insurer “makes no payment to or on behalf of the insured” and again at subsection (3) for one it never investigated. North Carolina covers a claim closed without payment, but only where the notice of loss was itself merely an inquiry, and New Mexico covers it inside a three-element test — under a chapeau that reaches only practices “knowingly committed or performed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice”.
Three more were missed and found by audit, and all three were missed the same way — by reading a state's statute and not its rules. Maryland's Ins. § 27-501(p)(2) bars adverse action based “in whole or in part” on an inquiry “that does not result in the payment of a claim”. Minnesota's Minn. R. 2880.0200 is a closed list of the only grounds for refusing to renew, and its claim-based item expressly excludes “losses for which no payment was made by the insurer”. Michigan's MCL 500.2117 makes the permitted underwriting rules exclusive and counts only “paid claims”.
Outside those seven, a claim opened and closed at zero sits in your history like any other. That is why the sequence matters: getting a repair estimate before you phone anyone is not caution for its own sake, it is the step that tells you whether there is anything worth claiming at all.
| The question | What the sources actually say |
|---|---|
| What is in a CLUE report? | LexisNexis describes it as claims data: “Property loss history reports provide granular information on date of loss, cause of loss, amounts paid and much more.” Its sell sheet says a report “contains up to seven years of personal property claims”. Inquiries are not a field it advertises |
| How much of the market does it see? | Read the measure carefully — we got this wrong ourselves at first. LexisNexis's product page offers reports “based on claims data provided by more than 90% of insurers that write homeowners coverage”. That is a share of insurers, not a share of policies in force. Its 2023 sell sheet gives a different figure again — “more than 95% industry contribution” |
| Are inquiries supposed to be reported? | No, according to regulators quoting the operator. Alabama's department: “C.L.U.E. has instructed insurers not to report inquiries about possible coverage.” Washington's: LexisNexis “advises insurance companies to not report claims information when you contact them to simply ask a question about coverage or your deductible” |
| So is it safe to call? | Not in the way people mean. Alabama's department, in the same document: “Consumers contacting their company or their agent to discuss an actual loss might be considered reporting a claim, even if the company does not end up making a claim payment.” Utah publishes near-identical wording. The statutes above restrict how an inquiry may be USED. Nothing stops it being RECORDED, and the recording is done by the person on the phone |
| Can I see the report? | Yes. The CFPB lists LexisNexis C.L.U.E. as a consumer reporting company: “This company will provide one free report every 12 months if you request it.” That makes it a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, with a right to dispute what is in it |
| Who fixes an error? | North Dakota's department is blunt about this: to correct an entry you contact the insurance company that reported it. Disputing with the database alone routes the question straight back to that insurer |
One citation to be careful of
If you go looking for this yourself you will probably meet RCW 48.18.545, cited as Washington's inquiry law. It is not. That section concerns credit inquiries — its operative language bars denial based on “the number of credit inquiries” — and has nothing to do with asking your insurer about coverage.
We looked for a Washington statute on claim inquiries and did not find one. Two bills proposed restricting the use of coverage inquiries, HB 1779 in 2005–06 and HB 2836 in 2003–04, and neither appears to have become law. Washington's insurance commissioner does publish useful consumer guidance on CLUE, which is quoted above — but guidance is not a statute, and we would rather tell you the difference than let the citation stand.
We mention this because a wrong citation on a page like this is worse than no citation. Somebody reads it, phones their insurer believing they are protected, and finds out otherwise.
| Step | Why |
|---|---|
| Decide before you dial whether you are asking or claiming — and be careful what you affirm | Read the Oregon sentence in the direction it actually runs. The insurer “may verify whether the consumer is making a claim as part of the inquiry”, and if you affirm it is not a claim, the insurer “may rely on the affirmation to rebut a later assertion to the contrary”. That arms the insurer, not you. It is a rebuttal it can use if you come back later saying the call was a notice of loss. So the honest guidance splits in two. If you already know you are only asking — you want to know what the rule is, there is no loss you are weighing — say so plainly; the ambiguity is what gets files opened. If you might claim, do not phone to ‘just ask’ at all. Get the repair estimate first and decide, then either let it go or report it as a claim. There is no safe third option: Oregon's protection is conditioned on your not making a claim and the statute expressly lets the insurer ask you which it is, so answering ‘I have not decided’ declines the condition the protection rests on. An earlier version of this row recommended exactly that |
| Ask about the policy, not about your damage, if you only want to know the rule | In Texas and Tennessee the protection covers general questions and stops at questions about specific damage that trigger an investigation. “What is my wind deductible?” and “a tree hit my roof last night” are different calls in those states |
| Ask your agent or broker rather than the carrier's claims line, where you can | A claims line exists to open claims. This is our inference from how the statutes are drafted, not something a regulator states |
| Get your own repair estimate before you phone anybody | If the number comes in near or under your deductible there may be nothing to claim. NAIC's own consumer guide says as much: “If the cost to repair the damage is not much more than your deductible, you might want to pay for the repairs without filing a claim” |
| Pull your free CLUE report once a year | You are entitled to one every twelve months. It is the only way to see what has actually been recorded about you, and errors are corrected through the insurer that reported them |
How we researched this
Read this before you rely on any row. This page has been adversarially audited twice on the day it was written, and both rounds found real errors. What follows is an honest account of how strong each part of it is, because the parts are not equally strong.
Three tiers of sourcing, and the table says which is which. Nine states were cross-verified — retrieved from two independent hosts and matched word for word: Texas, Connecticut, Tennessee, Wyoming, North Carolina, Delaware, North Dakota, New Jersey and New Mexico. Five rest on a single retrieval and are marked SINGLE-PASS: California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon and Utah. Three were added by audit through a summarizing tool rather than a raw read of the document’s own text, are marked ADDED BY AUDIT in the table, and are the weakest rows here: Maryland, Virginia and Michigan. Michigan rests on a single host. Individual quotations in the source list at the foot of this page carry the same marking, so you can see per sentence how it was obtained.
Seventeen is a floor, not a survey, and it has grown twice under attack. We are not claiming these are the only states. The searches were phrase-driven and keyed on the word ‘inquiry’. That is a known hole and we have now fallen into it twice: Minnesota and Michigan both protect the reader without ever using the word, by making a list of permitted grounds for non-renewal exclusive. Any state with a closed underwriting-rules list may belong here and not be listed. Four of the first fourteen states were located only because a search happened to surface them; two more, Maryland and Virginia, were found by an audit of the published page — and the page had by then already told readers that Maryland had no such law. A list that has grown by three the two times anyone attacked it is not a list to treat as complete.
Where we searched and found nothing, we searched twice: once for a statute and once for a department bulletin, because a state can regulate this by bulletin alone, which is how New Mexico’s 2025 rule reached insurers. On Maryland that was not enough. We read Maryland Bulletin 24-24 twice, found it was about filed rating rules, and published that Maryland had nothing. Reading a bulletin twice is not reading the code once.
One thing we could not obtain. LexisNexis’s own public pages describe C.L.U.E. as a claims database and do not address whether inquiries are reported; thirteen LexisNexis-authored pages were opened on 26 August 2026. Note the limit of that claim: the legacy consumer FAQ where such a statement would have lived now redirects to a portal carrying no C.L.U.E. explainer, so this is a statement about what is published today. The instruction to insurers not to report inquiries is documented here only through state regulators describing it, which is why those sentences are attributed to Alabama and Utah rather than to the operator.
Nothing here is legal advice and none of it is advice about your policy. Statutes are amended, and a page like this goes out of date without any visible signal that it has. Your state insurance department is the authority on your state. If you find an error, our corrections policy explains how we handle it.
Sources
Every passage this page puts in quotation marks, with the document it came from, the part of that document, and the date we read it. 45 quotations from 29 documents. Follow the links and check us. Statutes are amended and pages move; if one of these is wrong or dead, our corrections policy says how we handle it.
ORS 746.686(3) — https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_746.686
An insurer or insurance producer may not use an inquiry made by any means by the consumer to the insurer or to an insurance producer regarding the terms, conditions or coverage of an insurance policy, including an inquiry about an actual loss or claim filing process, to determine whether to issue or renew a policy or to determine rates or other terms and conditions of a policy if the consumer is not making a claim as part of the inquiry.
ORS 746.686(3) — 'Use of prior claim or inquiry in determination to issue or renew homeowner insurance policy; rules'. THE BROADEST PROTECTION FOUND that names an actual loss expressly. SINGLE-PASS retrieval; see methodology Retrieved 26 August 2026.
An insurer or insurance producer may verify whether the consumer is making a claim as part of the inquiry. If the consumer affirms that the inquiry is not a claim, the insurer or insurance producer may rely on the affirmation to rebut a later assertion to the contrary.
ORS 746.686(3), the sentences following the prohibition. READ WHICH WAY IT RUNS. This page originally called it 'binding on both sides'. It is not: it gives the INSURER a rebuttal to use if the consumer later asserts the call was a notice of loss. There is no reciprocal provision. SINGLE-PASS retrieval Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Tex. Ins. Code § 551.113(c). READ THE CLOSING CLAUSE — https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/insurance-code/ins-sect-551-113.html
customer inquiry means a telephone call or other communication made to an insurer that does not result in an investigation or claim and that is in regard to the general terms or conditions of or coverage offered under an insurance policy. The term includes a question concerning the process for filing a claim, and whether a policy will cover a loss, unless the question concerns specific damage that has occurred and that results in an investigation or claim.
Tex. Ins. Code § 551.113(c). READ THE CLOSING CLAUSE — it is the whole difference between Texas and Oregon. A Texas call about YOUR damage that triggers an investigation is outside the protection Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Tex. Ins. Code § 544.553, added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., ch. 570 (S.B. 736), eff. 1 Sept 2013 — https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/2021/insurance-code/title-5/subtitle-c/chapter-544/subchapter-l/section-544-553/
An insurer may not: (1) use an underwriting guideline based solely on whether a consumer inquiry has been made by or on behalf of the applicant or insured; or (2) charge a rate that is different from the rate charged to other individuals for the same coverage or increase a rate charged to an insured based solely on whether a consumer inquiry has been made by or on behalf of the applicant or insured.
Tex. Ins. Code § 544.553, added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., ch. 570 (S.B. 736), eff. 1 Sept 2013 — the RATING half, separate from § 551.113's underwriting half Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Texas Dept. of Insurance, Commissioner's Bulletin # B-0007-21, 19 Feb 2021, issued after the severe winter weather. The regulator restating its own statutes in plain language, which is the version worth quoting to an adjuster — https://www.tdi.texas.gov/bulletins/2021/B-0007-21.html
Insurers may not consider a customer inquiry as a basis for charging a different rate, nonrenewing or cancelling a policy, or not issuing a policy.
Texas Dept. of Insurance, Commissioner's Bulletin # B-0007-21, 19 Feb 2021, issued after the severe winter weather. The regulator restating its own statutes in plain language, which is the version worth quoting to an adjuster Retrieved 26 August 2026.
18 Del. C. § 4131, 'Inquiries', 76 Del. Laws c. 290 § 1 (2008). THE BROADEST DEFINITION IN THE COUNTRY as far as we can establish — https://delcode.delaware.gov/title18/c041/sc03/index.html
An insurer shall not consider an inquiry regarding a homeowners policy or a loss under that policy to be a claim for purposes of making underwriting decisions, including but not limited to decisions to nonrenew a policy. An inquiry is any contact initiated by an insured that is not the filing of a claim to an insurer.
18 Del. C. § 4131, 'Inquiries', 76 Del. Laws c. 290 § 1 (2008). THE BROADEST DEFINITION IN THE COUNTRY as far as we can establish — any contact that is not a filing Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-316d(c), P.A. 13-138 § 2 as amended by P.A. 14-175 § 2. THE ONLY STATE WE FOUND that reaches inquiries, zero-payment claims AND sub-$500 claims in one sentence — https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-38a/chapter-700/section-38a-316d/
The cancellation or nonrenewal of a homeowners insurance policy or an increase in the premium of such policy is prohibited if the cancellation, nonrenewal or increase is based solely on inquiries made on such policy or a claim filed under such policy that resulted in a loss coverage payment by the insurer of less than five hundred dollars or in no loss coverage payment.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-316d(c), P.A. 13-138 § 2 as amended by P.A. 14-175 § 2. THE ONLY STATE WE FOUND that reaches inquiries, zero-payment claims AND sub-$500 claims in one sentence Retrieved 26 August 2026.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-36-115(1) and (2), Session Law 2004-111 s.1 — https://law.justia.com/codes/north-carolina/chapter-58/article-36/section-58-36-115/
An inquiry about policy provisions that does not result in a claim; or A claim that was closed without payment, provided the notice of loss that was the subject of the claim was only an inquiry regarding policy provisions, and no claim for payment was requested by the insured or a third party.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-36-115(1) and (2), Session Law 2004-111 s.1 — the two limbs quoted together because they are alternatives. THIS ENTRY PREVIOUSLY SAID THE SECOND WAS CONDITIONED ON THE FIRST. It is not: the statute bars action based solely on 'either of the following'. What narrows the second limb is its own proviso, not the first limb Retrieved 26 August 2026.
N.D.C.C. § 26.1-25.2-03(2), 'Prohibited claims usage' — https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t26-1c25-2.pdf
An insured's inquiry regarding coverage for a loss if the insured files no claim
N.D.C.C. § 26.1-25.2-03(2), 'Prohibited claims usage' — one of SIX enumerated events, not three, as an earlier version of this entry said. The others reach an inquiry into type or level of coverage; a claim the insurer did not investigate; a claim it paid nothing on; a first wind or hail claim within five years; and a claim over ten years old Retrieved 26 August 2026.
A claim if the insurer makes no payment to or on behalf of the insured and the claim does not involve deceptive practices on the part of the insured
N.D.C.C. § 26.1-25.2-03(4), from the state's own Century Code chapter PDF. ADDED 26 Aug 2026 — this page originally described North Dakota's zero-payment protection as keyed to the insurer's CONDUCT, because it had read subdivision (3) and not (4). Subdivision (4) is a direct payment test and is the stronger of the two. The section has SIX enumerated events, not three Retrieved 26 August 2026.
A claim if the insurer conducts no investigation of a claim or initiates no other claim activity and the claim does not involve deceptive practices on the part of the insured
N.D.C.C. § 26.1-25.2-03(3), from the state's own Century Code chapter PDF. CORRECTED 26 Aug 2026 — this page first rendered the connector as 'and initiates no other claim activity'. THE STATUTE SAYS 'or', which is far broader: either failure is enough. Confirmed word for word on three independent hosts including the state's own PDF Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-113(b), 2014 Tenn. Acts ch. 975 § 1, eff. 1 July 2014. The operative sentence reads broadly; the DEFINITIONS in § 56-7-113(a)(3) narrow 'inquiry' to general terms and whether a policy covers a TYPE of event — https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/title-56/chapter-7/part-1/section-56-7-113/
No insurance company shall increase a premium or cancel a homeowner's insurance policy solely on the basis of an inquiry or inquiries by an insured regarding the insured's homeowner's insurance policy or a loss under the policy.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-113(b), 2014 Tenn. Acts ch. 975 § 1, eff. 1 July 2014. The operative sentence reads broadly; the DEFINITIONS in § 56-7-113(a)(3) narrow 'inquiry' to general terms and whether a policy covers a TYPE of event — not your event. Read the two together Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Wyo. Stat. § 26-23-108(a), second sentence — https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/title-26/chapter-23/article-1/section-26-23-108
Customer inquiries are defined as telephone calls or other requests for information made by the named insured or a person who would be a named insured under the policy, that reference the terms, conditions or coverage afforded under an insurance contract and do not result in claims being filed or paid.
Wyo. Stat. § 26-23-108(a), second sentence — the definition lives inside the operative subsection, not in a definitions section. Note the class limit: a request by someone who is not, and would not be, a named insured is not a 'customer inquiry'. Laws 2004, ch. 57, § 1; applies to policies delivered, issued for delivery or renewed on or after 1 July 2004 Retrieved 26 August 2026.
No insurer shall cancel, refuse to renew or offer to renew at a higher premium a homeowner's insurance policy based in any manner upon the claims history of a named insured unless the claims history excludes customer inquiries.
Wyo. Stat. § 26-23-108(a). Wyoming carries the strongest REMEDY of any state here — § 26-23-108(b) lets the commissioner order reinstatement with no lapse and the return of an unauthorised premium increase with 10% annual interest Retrieved 26 August 2026.
NMSA 1978 § 59A-16-20(P), Laws 2025 ch. 120 § 1, effective 20 JUNE 2025 — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-59a/article-16/section-59a-16-20/
treating an insured's inquiry relating to damage or loss as a claim when the facts of the inquiry are not covered in the policy, the insurer makes no payment to or on behalf of the insured and the claim does not involve deceptive practices on the part of the insured
NMSA 1978 § 59A-16-20(P), Laws 2025 ch. 120 § 1, effective 20 JUNE 2025 — the newest such law in the country, and drafted as a prohibited unfair claims practice rather than an underwriting rule. Note the THREE elements, all of which must be met Retrieved 26 August 2026.
knowingly committed or performed with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice
NMSA 1978 § 59A-16-20, the chapeau governing every subsection including (P). A THRESHOLD THIS PAGE MISSED, above the three elements in (P). READ THE CONNECTOR: it is 'knowingly committed OR performed with such frequency', two alternatives, not one cumulative hurdle — so a single KNOWING mislogging is already a violation. An earlier version of this entry called it a fourth cumulative element, which overstated the barrier in the insurer's favor. Retrieved through a summarizing channel Retrieved 26 August 2026.
N.J.A.C. 11:1-20.4(e)1 — https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-jersey/N-J-A-C-11-1-20-4
no inquiry by an insured for information regarding the insured's homeowners' insurance policy, or coverage for a particular loss under that policy, shall be categorized as a claim for purposes of determining adverse loss experience
N.J.A.C. 11:1-20.4(e)1 — NOT (e), which is a chapeau about adverse loss experience generally and does not contain this sentence. CORRECTED TWICE. This entry also called New Jersey 'A REGULATION, not a statute', warning that it could be amended without a legislature. THAT WAS WRONG: the rule opens 'Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4.1', and the statute carries penalties. 'Coverage for a particular loss' is what puts New Jersey in the broad column Retrieved 26 August 2026.
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(1). CORRECTED 26 Aug 2026 — https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-10-insurance/co-rev-st-sect-10-4-110-8/
An insurer may not cancel or fail to renew coverage of an insured solely because the insured inquires about coverage for homeowner's insurance and the inquiry is not related to an actual claim to the property insured.
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(1). CORRECTED 26 Aug 2026 — this page previously quoted the sentence WITHOUT its closing words 'to the property insured', which are substantive: they tie the disqualifying claim to this property rather than to any claim anywhere. The full form was confirmed on four hosts, including the 2013 session law. SINGLE-PASS as to the codified text Retrieved 26 August 2026.
"Claim" includes a demand for payment of a benefit by the insured, the payment of a covered benefit by an insurer, a loss reserve established by the insurer, a loss adjustment expense incurred by the insurer, or a payment made to the insured.
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(3)(b), the definitions subsection, scoped 'As used in this section' — so it reaches subsection (1). Note 'includes': the list is a floor, not a ceiling. TWO LIMITS ON HOW FAR THIS CAN BE PUSHED. The scope clause reads 'unless the context otherwise requires', and subsection (1) protects against an 'ACTUAL claim', a term the section never defines. An insurer could argue 'actual' is there to exclude a paper-only loss reserve Retrieved 26 August 2026.
An insurer may only provide information regarding claims to an entity that compiles or monitors personal claim or loss experience shared by insurers for underwriting or rating purposes.
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(2), the claim-information-sharing provision. NOTE 'MAY ONLY'. This page first paraphrased it as letting an insurer report claims to CLUE, which reverses a restriction into a permission. On the competing reading it allows only CLAIMS information to be shared and so cuts in the homeowner's favor. We do not know which reading governs and say so on the page. SINGLE-PASS retrieval Retrieved 26 August 2026.
'Inquiry' means a request for information regarding the terms, conditions, or coverages afforded under an insurance contract.
C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(3)(e), the definitions subsection — one paragraph letter away from (3)(b), which this page already quoted. THIS IS THE ACTUAL REASON COLORADO GRADES NO, and the page reached that grade by a two-step inference through the loss-reserve definition instead. The subject-matter limit is right there in the text. Found by the second audit. SINGLE-PASS retrieval Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Utah Code § 31A-22-1308(2)(a)(ii), 'Use of loss history by insurers' — https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title31A/Chapter22/C31A-22-P13_1800010118000101.pdf
a telephone call or other inquiry by an insured of a loss if the loss did not result in the insured requesting payment of a claim
Utah Code § 31A-22-1308(2)(a)(ii), 'Use of loss history by insurers' — one of four bases an insurer may not use for an adverse eligibility or rate decision. Chapter 382, 2008 General Session. SINGLE-PASS retrieval Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Utah Insurance Department, C.L.U.E. consumer page, under the heading 'Can C.L.U.E. reports distinguish between an inquiry and a claim?'. THE SECOND REGULATOR SAYING THIS, in almost Alabama's words. Utah adds on the same page: 'Consumers should be specific as to whether they are filing a claim or only making an inquiry' — https://insurance.utah.gov/consumers/clue/
Consumers should be aware that contacting their company or their agent to discuss an actual loss might be considered reporting a claim, even if the company does not end up making a claim payment.
Utah Insurance Department, C.L.U.E. consumer page, under the heading 'Can C.L.U.E. reports distinguish between an inquiry and a claim?'. THE SECOND REGULATOR SAYING THIS, in almost Alabama's words. Utah adds on the same page: 'Consumers should be specific as to whether they are filing a claim or only making an inquiry' Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Minn. Stat. § 65A.285, subd. 1, 'Surcharge prohibition'. Laws 2014 c 198 art 4 s 7. Read with subd. 2(2), which defines 'surcharge' as an increase in premium 'including the removal of a claim-free discount' — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/65A.285
An insurer may not impose a surcharge on homeowners insurance solely as a result of a consumer inquiry.
Minn. Stat. § 65A.285, subd. 1, 'Surcharge prohibition'. Laws 2014 c 198 art 4 s 7. Read with subd. 2(2), which defines 'surcharge' as an increase in premium 'including the removal of a claim-free discount' — that is how Minnesota reaches the discount. SINGLE-PASS retrieval Retrieved 26 August 2026.
consumer inquiry means a telephone call or other communication made to an insurer that does not result in a paid claim and that is in regard to the general terms or conditions of or coverage offered under an insurance policy.
Minn. Stat. § 65A.285, subd. 2(1), FIRST SENTENCE. The test is conjunctive: a communication must BOTH not result in a paid claim AND concern general terms, conditions or coverage. DO NOT STOP HERE — the next sentence, registered below, pulls 'whether a policy will cover a loss' inside that second limb. This page read the first sentence alone and graded Minnesota 'No' on it. SINGLE-PASS retrieval Retrieved 26 August 2026.
The term includes a question concerning the process for filing a claim and whether a policy will cover a loss
Minn. Stat. § 65A.285, subd. 2(1), SECOND SENTENCE. REGISTERED AFTER A SECOND AUDIT — the page quoted these words in the Minnesota row without ever declaring them, so a reader checking our sources would have found them only under TEXAS, in the version that CARRIES a carve-out. Minnesota has the widening sentence and NOT the Texas carve-out for specific damage that triggers an investigation. SINGLE-PASS retrieval Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Cal. Ins. Code § 791.12(c), amended by Stats. 2012, ch. 823, § 3 (AB 2298), eff. 1 Jan 2013. TWO LIMITS IN ONE SENTENCE, and this page originally reported only one: the policy must be a residential fire or property policy, AND the information must have reached the insurer through an insurance-support organization. § 791.02(l) excludes insurance institutions and agents from that definition, so an insurer's own note of your call falls outside § 791.12(c). SINGLE-PASS retrieval — https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/insurance-code/ins-sect-791-12/
On the fact that an individual has previously inquired and received information about the scope or nature of coverage under a residential fire or property insurance policy, if the information is received from an insurance-support organization whose primary source of information is insurance institutions and the inquiry did not result in the filing of a claim.
Cal. Ins. Code § 791.12(c), amended by Stats. 2012, ch. 823, § 3 (AB 2298), eff. 1 Jan 2013. TWO LIMITS IN ONE SENTENCE, and this page originally reported only one: the policy must be a residential fire or property policy, AND the information must have reached the insurer through an insurance-support organization. § 791.02(l) excludes insurance institutions and agents from that definition, so an insurer's own note of your call falls outside § 791.12(c). SINGLE-PASS retrieval Retrieved 26 August 2026.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 'A Consumer's Guide to Home Insurance', 2022 edition, p. 11, under the heading 'FILING A CLAIM'. NAIC names CLUE in the very next sentence — https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/publication-hoi-pp-consumer-homeowners.pdf
If the cost to repair the damage is not much more than your deductible, you might want to pay for the repairs without filing a claim.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 'A Consumer's Guide to Home Insurance', 2022 edition, p. 11, under the heading 'FILING A CLAIM'. NAIC names CLUE in the very next sentence Retrieved 26 August 2026.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, C.L.U.E. Property product page, under Features — https://risk.lexisnexis.com/products/clue-property
Property loss history reports provide granular information on date of loss, cause of loss, amounts paid and much more.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, C.L.U.E. Property product page, under Features — 'Get Detailed Historical Information'. THE OPERATOR'S OWN DESCRIPTION of what a report contains. Inquiries are not among the fields it advertises Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Access reports based on claims data provided by more than 90% of insurers that write homeowners coverage.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, C.L.U.E. Property product page. QUOTED IN FULL BECAUSE THIS PAGE ORIGINALLY REVERSED IT — we wrote 'insurers writing more than 90% of homeowners coverage', which is a claim about market share of policies. The figure is a share OF INSURERS. LexisNexis's own 2023 sell sheet gives a different number again, 'more than 95% industry contribution' Retrieved 26 August 2026.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, C.L.U.E. Property sell sheet, document NXR01877-0 0323-EN-US, March 2023. CITED TO THE PDF DELIBERATELY: the seven-year figure is NOT on the product page. 'Inquiring' here means the CARRIER running the search, not a consumer inquiry — https://risk.lexisnexis.com/-/media/files/insurance/sub%20industry%20page%20assets/clue-property/en-us_clue_property_ss.pdf
C.L.U.E. Property contains up to seven years of personal property claims matching the search criteria submitted by the inquiring insurance company.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, C.L.U.E. Property sell sheet, document NXR01877-0 0323-EN-US, March 2023. CITED TO THE PDF DELIBERATELY: the seven-year figure is NOT on the product page. 'Inquiring' here means the CARRIER running the search, not a consumer inquiry — a false friend Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Alabama Dept. of Insurance, 'Information for Consumers: What is a C.L.U.E. report?'. NOTE WHOSE STATEMENT THIS IS — https://aldoi.gov/PDF/Consumers/CLUEReport.pdf
C.L.U.E. has instructed insurers not to report inquiries about possible coverage.
Alabama Dept. of Insurance, 'Information for Consumers: What is a C.L.U.E. report?'. NOTE WHOSE STATEMENT THIS IS — a state regulator describing what a private database operator instructs. LexisNexis's own public product pages describe CLUE purely as a CLAIMS database and do not mention inquiries at all, which we checked on five of its pages Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Consumers contacting their company or their agent to discuss an actual loss might be considered reporting a claim, even if the company does not end up making a claim payment.
Alabama Dept. of Insurance, same document. THE MOST IMPORTANT SENTENCE ON THIS PAGE and the reason none of the statutes below make it safe to phone casually. Utah's insurance department publishes near-identical wording Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner, 'CLUE (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange)'. Note 'simply ask a question about coverage' — https://www.insurance.wa.gov/insurance-resources/auto-insurance/credit-and-insurance/clue-comprehensive-loss-underwriting-exchange
LexisNexis® advises insurance companies to not report claims information when you contact them to simply ask a question about coverage or your deductible.
Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner, 'CLUE (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange)'. Note 'simply ask a question about coverage' — the carve-out is doing the same work as the Texas statute's closing clause Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consumer-reporting-companies list, LexisNexis C.L.U.E. entry. The CFPB lists CLUE as a consumer reporting company, which is what brings the Fair Credit Reporting Act rights with it — https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/credit-reports-and-scores/consumer-reporting-companies/companies-list/comprehensive-loss-underwriting-exchange/
This company will provide one free report every 12 months if you request it.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consumer-reporting-companies list, LexisNexis C.L.U.E. entry. The CFPB lists CLUE as a consumer reporting company, which is what brings the Fair Credit Reporting Act rights with it Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27-501(p)(1), the definition. THIS PAGE FIRST PUBLISHED THAT MARYLAND HAD NO SUCH LAW. It does, and it is stronger than most rows in the table. The error came from reading Maryland Bulletin 24-24 and never opening the statute. Retrieved through a summarizing channel, not raw text — https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gin§ion=27-501
In this subsection, 'inquiry' means a telephone call or other communication to an insurer regarding the terms and conditions of a homeowner's insurance policy, including a telephone call or other communication about whether the policy provides coverage for a particular loss or the process for filing a claim.
Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27-501(p)(1), the definition. THIS PAGE FIRST PUBLISHED THAT MARYLAND HAD NO SUCH LAW. It does, and it is stronger than most rows in the table. The error came from reading Maryland Bulletin 24-24 and never opening the statute. Retrieved through a summarizing channel, not raw text Retrieved 26 August 2026.
With respect to homeowner's insurance, an insurer may not refuse to underwrite a risk, increase a premium, or cancel or refuse to renew coverage based in whole or in part on an inquiry by an insured or an insurance producer on behalf of an insured that does not result in the payment of a claim.
Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27-501(p)(2), the prohibition. NOTE 'IN WHOLE OR IN PART' — almost every other statute on this page says 'solely', which is a far easier test for an insurer to satisfy. Retrieved through a summarizing channel, not raw text Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Va. Code § 38.2-2114(I)(16), added by 2026 Acts cc. 657, 658, EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2027. THE SENTENCE THAT FALSIFIED THIS PAGE'S HEADLINE STRUCTURAL CLAIM. We wrote that every one of these laws restricts USE and none stops RECORDING. Virginia stops the recording. Retrieved through a summarizing channel, not raw text — https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title38.2/chapter21/section38.2-2114/
An insurer shall not report any inquiry as a claim to a loss history database maintained by a consumer reporting agency or insurance support organization.
Va. Code § 38.2-2114(I)(16), added by 2026 Acts cc. 657, 658, EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2027. THE SENTENCE THAT FALSIFIED THIS PAGE'S HEADLINE STRUCTURAL CLAIM. We wrote that every one of these laws restricts USE and none stops RECORDING. Virginia stops the recording. Retrieved through a summarizing channel, not raw text Retrieved 26 August 2026.
For purposes of this subdivision, 'inquiry' means a written or oral communication by an insured seeking information regarding coverage or policy provisions that does not notify the insurer of a loss, incident or accident, and that does not provide information indicating an increase in the hazard insured against.
Va. Code § 38.2-2114(I)(16), the definition of 'inquiry'. QUOTED IN FULL AFTER A SECOND AUDIT: this page first quoted only the middle of it, dropping the subject-matter limit at the front AND a second independent disqualifier at the back. Mentioning that the roof is now tarped may be information indicating an increase in the hazard, which puts the call outside the bar. That is the same truncation this page prosecutes elsewhere. Retrieved through a summarizing channel Retrieved 26 August 2026.
No insurer or agent shall refuse to renew a policy written to insure an owner-occupied dwelling, solely because of any one or more of the following factors
Va. Code § 38.2-2114(I), the chapeau above subdivision (16). THREE LIMITS THIS PAGE FIRST OMITTED: the protection runs to REFUSAL TO RENEW only — not cancellation, premium or declination — it covers OWNER-OCCUPIED dwellings only, and it uses 'solely'. Virginia is therefore also a use-restriction state, which the first version of this row did not say. Retrieved through a summarizing channel Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Minn. R. 2880.0200, item G — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/2880.0200/
If the insured has two or more losses during the experience period, but not to include: (1) losses caused by natural causes including but not limited to lightning, wind, or hail; or (2) losses for which no payment was made by the insurer; or (3) losses for which the insurer recovers 80 percent or more of the payment through subrogation.
Minn. R. 2880.0200, item G — one item on a CLOSED LIST of the only permitted grounds for refusing to renew a homeowners policy. This page originally said Minnesota reached surcharges only, and that only four jurisdictions reached zero-payment claims. Both were wrong because we read the statute and not the rule. Retrieved through a summarizing channel, not raw text Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2117(1). THE SEVENTEENTH JURISDICTION, found by the second audit. Michigan never uses the word 'inquiry' — https://law.justia.com/codes/michigan/chapter-500/statute-act-218-of-1956/division-218-1956-21/section-500-2117/
an insurer shall not refuse to insure, refuse to continue to insure, or limit the coverage available to an eligible person for home insurance, except in accordance with underwriting rules established under this section and section 2119
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2117(1). THE SEVENTEENTH JURISDICTION, found by the second audit. Michigan never uses the word 'inquiry' — it makes the permitted underwriting rules EXCLUSIVE, which reaches the same place. That is the second time a closed list of permitted grounds was missed by a search keyed on 'inquiry'. Retrieved through a summarizing channel, ONE HOST ONLY Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Three paid claims within the immediately preceding 3-year period totaling $3,000.00 or more, exclusive of weather-related claims.
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2117(2)(e)(i)(A), one of the permitted claim-based grounds. NOTE 'PAID'. Because the list is exclusive and this ground counts only PAID claims above a dollar floor, a claim that paid nothing cannot be counted at all — which puts Michigan in the zero-payment table too. Retrieved through a summarizing channel, ONE HOST ONLY Retrieved 26 August 2026.
North Dakota Insurance Department, 'Loss History Reports' consumer page. REGISTERED 26 Aug 2026: this page asserted it without naming any document, which is the exact class of unregistered claim check 3.12 exists to catch. Retrieved through a summarizing channel — https://www.insurance.nd.gov/consumers/other-resources/loss-history-reports
You must get the insurance company that provided the incorrect information to the loss history database to correct the entry.
North Dakota Insurance Department, 'Loss History Reports' consumer page. REGISTERED 26 Aug 2026: this page asserted it without naming any document, which is the exact class of unregistered claim check 3.12 exists to catch. Retrieved through a summarizing channel Retrieved 26 August 2026.
N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4.1(a), L.2001, c.235, s.1. THIS PAGE WARNED READERS THAT NEW JERSEY'S PROTECTION WAS ONLY A REGULATION, amendable without a legislature. There is a statute, and the regulation is made 'pursuant to' it. § 17:29B-4.1(b) sets the penalty, per § 17:29B-4.1(b), at 'up to $5,000 for each violation' — https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2009/title-17/17-29b/17-29b-4-1
No inquiry by an insured for information regarding the insured's homeowners' insurance policy, or coverage for a particular loss under that policy, shall be categorized as a claim for the purpose of determining adverse claims experience.
N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4.1(a), L.2001, c.235, s.1. THIS PAGE WARNED READERS THAT NEW JERSEY'S PROTECTION WAS ONLY A REGULATION, amendable without a legislature. There is a statute, and the regulation is made 'pursuant to' it. § 17:29B-4.1(b) sets the penalty, per § 17:29B-4.1(b), at 'up to $5,000 for each violation' — rising, per that same subsection, to not more than $25,000 where the insurer 'knew or reasonably should have known' it was in violation. AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS ENTRY GAVE ONLY THE $25,000 CEILING and dropped both the $5,000 default and the knowledge condition. Retrieved through a summarizing channel Retrieved 26 August 2026.
Frequently asked questions
If I just ask whether something is covered, does that go on my record?
It is not supposed to. Alabama's insurance department states that “C.L.U.E. has instructed insurers not to report inquiries about possible coverage”, and Washington's says LexisNexis “advises insurance companies to not report claims information when you contact them to simply ask a question about coverage or your deductible”. A general question about the policy is the safest kind of call there is. The risk is not in asking what the rule is — it is in describing damage that has already happened.
What if I describe the damage and then decide not to claim?
That is the situation the whole page is about, and the answer depends on where you live. In Maryland, Delaware, Oregon, Utah, New Jersey, North Dakota, Connecticut and New Mexico the law reaches that call. In Texas, Tennessee and Colorado it does not — Texas excludes a question that “concerns specific damage that has occurred and that results in an investigation or claim”. And in every state, the law governs how the inquiry may be used, not whether the person on the phone opens a file. Alabama's department warns that discussing an actual loss “might be considered reporting a claim, even if the company does not end up making a claim payment”.
My claim was closed with no payment. Does that count against me?
In most states, yes. Only seven jurisdictions we found reach zero-payment claims. Connecticut, at § 38a-316d(c), bars action based solely on a claim paying under $500 or nothing at all. North Dakota reaches it twice, at § 26.1-25.2-03(4) for a claim on which the insurer makes no payment and at subsection (3) for one it never investigated. North Carolina covers a claim closed without payment where the notice of loss was only an inquiry. New Mexico covers it within a three-element test. Outside those, a $0 claim sits in your history like any other — and Colorado's § 10-4-110.8(3)(b) is worse than neutral, defining a claim to include a loss reserve the insurer sets aside.
Is there a right way to phrase the call?
Oregon writes the exchange into statute, and it is worth understanding before you borrow it. The insurer “may verify whether the consumer is making a claim as part of the inquiry”, and if you affirm it is not, the insurer “may rely on the affirmation to rebut a later assertion to the contrary”. Notice who that helps. The sentence gives the insurer a rebuttal, not you a protection — an earlier version of this page called it binding on both sides and told readers elsewhere that saying it ‘costs nothing’. That was wrong and it could cost someone a claim. If you are only asking, say so: the ambiguity is what gets files opened. But if you might claim, the answer is not to hedge on the phone. Oregon's protection applies only where you are not making a claim, and the same subsection lets the insurer ask you outright, so “I have not decided” steps outside the protection rather than into it. Get your estimate first, decide, and then either let it go or report it as a claim. A previous version of this answer recommended saying you had not decided; that was our correction to an earlier error and it was itself wrong.
How do I see what is already on my record?
Request your CLUE report. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lists LexisNexis C.L.U.E. as a consumer reporting company and states that it “will provide one free report every 12 months if you request it”. That status also brings Fair Credit Reporting Act rights, including the right to dispute what is in it. One practical warning from North Dakota's department: an error is corrected through the insurance company that reported it, so disputing with the database alone sends the question straight back to that insurer.
Does this mean I am protected in the other thirty-three states?
No, and we would rather say so. Seventeen is what we located and could read in the primary text — it is a floor, not a complete list. Four of the first fourteen turned up only because a search happened to surface them, and our searches keyed on the word “inquiry”; a state regulating this as a “request for information” or a “communication” would have been missed. If your state is not listed, ask your insurance department directly rather than assuming either way.