CCC/Solera raise time and cost concerns over section in Washington claims rule

CCC and Solera filed multiple comments over the past year opposing language found in proposed versions of a new rule focused on insurance company claims handling recently adopted by the Washington State insurance commissioner. 

The new rule overhauled minimum standards for claims handling, effective Oct. 18. 

Both CCC and Solera focused their comments on a subsection that requires insurance companies to provide certain information to a consumer upon request if a computerized source was used to determine actual cash values. 

Each expressed concern that language in versions of the proposed rule could slow the claims handling process and make it more expensive.

All of the written comments from CCC and Solera focused on section 284-30-392(4)(d) found in drafts of revisions to WAC 284-30.

The first pre-published draft of the subsection by the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC), dated July 24, states that when an insurer uses a computerized source for determining statistically valid actual cash values, it must provide supporting information to demonstrate the comparable motor vehicle’s condition.

“CCC has significant concerns regarding the Proposed Rule in its current form and believes implementing it as drafted could result in considerable challenges, as well as increased claim time and costs,” CCC said in submitted comments to the draft. 

The proposed rule did not specify what forms of documentation would be acceptable, CCC writes. It adds that it would be infeasible for the insurer to inspect and document the condition of every comparable vehicle that could be included in the variations. 

“For perspective, CCC currently maintains approximately 8 million unique vehicles in its databases, including about 202,000 unique vehicles within Washington State,” the comments state. “Over 20 million unique vehicles pass through CCC’s database annually, with approximately 490,000 in Washington State alone. CCC processed approximately 120,000 valuations in Washington in 2024, which collectively included 510,000 comparable vehicles.”

In the OIC’s second published draft of the rule on Sept. 25, 2025, 284-30-392(4)(d) was reworked to add the language, “Upon request from the claimant,” the insurer must provide supporting information to demonstrate the comparable motor vehicle’s condition. 

CCC responded again with similar concerns. 

“In all events, requiring documentation of every comparable vehicle used in valuations by a computerized database would impede the efficient operation of most computerized sources used for determining actual cash value,” the company’s comments say. “CCC is not aware of any other state that requires such documentation. It would place a strain on resources, extend claims processing times, and increase costs.” 

Solera commented, saying it had serious concerns and that the requirements are burdensome and unworkable. 

“It is simply impossible to provide supporting condition information for millions of vehicles contained in valuation databases,” Solera writes. “These vehicles are drawn from active listings across the country, updated daily, and cannot feasibly be verified through physical inspection or seller contact.” 

It adds that the documentation requirement would “paralyze the total loss settlement process.” 

Solera commented two additional times earlier in the rulemaking process but did not make any additional comments following the July comments. The company did not respond to an email from Repairer Driven News asking for comments on the final adopted rule. 

A Proposed Rulemaking filed March 18 changed the language of 284-30-392(4)(d) again. 

“Upon request from the claimant, and if the insurer used condition of a comparable motor vehicle to reduce a payment to the claimant, then the insurer must provide supporting information of the condition that allows the reduction,” the proposed rule says. 

CCC filed more comments saying, “CCC appreciates that the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (the “Department”) has proposed some changes since the prepublication drafts. Nevertheless, CCC remains concerned about several aspects of the proposed changes to Section 392(4)(d), including, but not limited to, the fact that the section lacks clarity, is vague, and internally inconsistent.”

OIC made no changes to the subsection of the rule in a May 5 filing. 

In comments submitted by CCC, it said the subsection remained unclear and that it would make demonstrating the condition of comparable vehicles so burdensome that it would effectively eliminate consideration of condition in computerized valuations. 

It added that the language leaves unclear what constitutes acceptable “supporting information” or “demonstration,” making good-faith compliance difficult. 

“Even if sufficient regulatory clarity is provided, the proposed changes to Section 392(4)(d) are likely to increase valuation cycle times, resulting in delayed relief for vehicle owners and claimants, as well as higher storage and rental costs,” the comments state. “All of this would place a strain on resources, extend claims processing times, and increase costs.”

The comments also claim that the rule imposes inconsistent requirements on different valuation methodologies using the same comparable vehicles and singles out computerized valuations for additional condition documentation requirements without justification. 

CCC proposed the following wording changes to the rule: “Upon request from the claimant, and if a negative monetary adjustment was made to comparable motor vehicle relating to its condition, then the insurer must provide supporting information of the condition that allows the reduction.”

The OIC’s final rule adopted Aug. 18 changed part of the subsection regarding the specific type of information insurance companies should provide. 

“Upon request from the claimant, and if the insurer used a condition of a comparable motor vehicle to reduce a payment to the claimant, then the insurer must provide to the claimant supporting photographs and documentation to demonstrate its determination of the condition,” the adopted rule reads. 

CCC did not provide a direct comment on its opinion of the final rule when asked by RDN, but it did say, “CCC actively monitors regulations and laws related to the industry and participates in the regulatory process as appropriate.”

Image

Photo courtesy of the Washington OIC.