Professional Liability
Errors and omissions, directors and officers, employment practices, fiduciary, and miscellaneous professional liability coverage — typically written on claims-made-and-reported forms with strict notice and reporting conditions.
Playbook Overview
- Category
- Property & Casualty
- Common Letter Types
- acknowledgmentreservation of rightscoverage investigationpartial denialfull denialpaymentsettlementstatusclosing
- High Complexity Jurisdictions
- californianew yorktexas
Professional liability correspondence is shaped by claims-made-and-reported triggers, consent-to-settle provisions, and allocation between covered and uncovered matters. Precise notice-of-claim language and reservations preserve coverage while protecting the insured's defense.
Jurisdiction Comparison Matrix
Acknowledgment, accept/deny, and payment deadlines alongside the duty to defend notice rule for each state. Click a column header to sort; click a state to see full requirements.
50 of 50 states
| Alabama(AL) | 15 calendar days | 30 calendar days | 30 calendar days | Yes | High |
| Alaska(AK) | 10 business days | 15 business days | 30 business days | Yes | High |
| Arizona(AZ) | 10 business days | 15 business days | 30 calendar days | YES (per United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Morris, 154 Ariz. 113 (1987)) | High |
| Arkansas(AR) | 15 business days | 15 business days | 10 business days | YES (per Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Zadeck Energy Grp., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 654) | High |
| California(CA) | 15 calendar days | 40 calendar days | 30 calendar days | YES (per 10 CCR § 2695.7) | High |
| Colorado(CO) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 60 calendar days | 60 calendar days | YES (per Hecla Mining Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 811 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1991)) | Medium |
| Connecticut(CT) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | YES (per Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co., 264 Conn. 688) | Medium |
| Delaware(DE) | 15 business days | 30 calendar days | 30 calendar days | YES (per McNally v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 815 F.2d 254) | High |
| Florida(FL) | 7 calendar days | 60 calendar days | 60 calendar days | Yes | High |
| Georgia(GA) | 15 calendar days | 15 calendar days after receiving proof of loss, or 30 calendar days from notice of claim if no proof of loss is required; 60 calendar days absolute maximum (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-52-.03(3) & (5)) | 10 calendar days | YES (per Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Co., 291 Ga. 402) | High |
| Hawaii(HI) | 15 business days | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | YES (per AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc. v. Smith, 78 Haw. 174) | Medium |
| Idaho(ID) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | YES (per Hoyle v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 137 Idaho 367) | Medium |
| Illinois(IL) | 15 business days | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | YES (per Cincinnati Cos. v. West American Ins. Co., 183 Ill. 2d 317 (1998)) | Medium |
| Indiana(IN) | Promptly (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Promptly (no specific number) | Yes | Medium |
| Iowa(IA) | 15 calendar days | C30 (extendable with notice within the 30-day period) | 30 calendar days | Yes | High |
| Kansas(KS) | 10 business days | 15 business days | Promptly (no specific number) | YES (per Bogle v. Conway, 199 Kan. 707) | High |
| Kentucky(KY) | 15 | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | YES (per Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Shely, 234 S.W.2d 303 (Ky. 1950)) | High |
| Louisiana(LA) | 14 calendar days | REASONABLE (written offer to settle within C30 after receipt of satisfactory proofs of loss) | C30 (C60 for catastrophic residential property claims) | YES (per Steptore v. Masco Const. Co., 643 So. 2d 1213 (La. 1994)) | High |
| Maine(ME) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | C30 (for non-fire property claims after proof of loss is received); C60 (for fire policies after proof of loss is received and ascertainment of the loss is made) | YES (per 24-A M.R.S. § 2436-A(1)(D)) | Medium |
| Maryland(MD) | 15 business days | 15 business days | Promptly (no specific number) | YES (per Brohawn v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 276 Md. 396) | High |
| Massachusetts(MA) | REASONABLE (Reasonably promptly per Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 3(9)(b)) | REASONABLE (Within a reasonable time after proof of loss per Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, § 3(9)(e); 15 days to notify intention to rebuild/repair per Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 99) | C30 (Within 30 days after statement of loss or executed proof of loss per Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 99) | Yes | Medium |
| Michigan(MI) | Promptly (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 60 calendar days | YES (per Kirschner v. Process Design Associates, Inc., 459 Mich. 587 (1999)) | Medium |
| Minnesota(MN) | 10 business days | B60 (after proof of loss) / B30 (after notification of claim, unless delayed and properly noticed) | B5 (from settlement agreement receipt or condition performance); C60 (after proof of loss and ascertainment under Standard Fire Policy) | YES (per Home Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh, 658 N.W.2d 522) | High |
| Mississippi(MS) | Promptly (no specific number) | REASONABLE (case law) | REASONABLE (case law) | YES (per Pilate v. American Federated Ins. Co., 865 So. 2d 387) | Medium |
| Missouri(MO) | 10 business days | 15 business days | Promptly (no specific number) | YES (per Brooner & Assocs. Constr., Inc. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 760 S.W.2d 445) | High |
| Montana(MT) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days to pay or discharge any duty, extendable to 60 calendar days with reasonable request for additional information; interest accrues after the 30/60 day period (Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-232(1)). Must affirm or deny within a reasonable time (§ 33-18-201(5)). | C30 (extendable to C60 if additional information was requested) | YES (per Tidyman's Mgmt. Servs. Inc. v. Davis, 2014 MT 205) | High |
| Nebraska(NE) | 15 calendar days | 15 calendar days | 15 calendar days | YES (per Hawkeye Cas. Co. v. Stoker, 48 N.W.2d 623 (Neb. 1951)) | High |
| Nevada(NV) | 20 business days | 30 business days | 30 calendar days | YES (per State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 357 P.3d 338) | High |
| New Hampshire(NH) | 10 business days | No strict deadline; must decide within 5 working days of receiving requested documentation or send a delay letter (N.H. Admin. Code Ins 1002.05(d)-(e)) | 5 business days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | High |
| New Jersey(NJ) | 10 business days | 30 calendar days | 10 business days | YES (per Merchants Indem. Corp. v. Eggleston) | High |
| New Mexico(NM) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Promptly (no specific number) | YES (per Garcia v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, 143 N.M. 732; NMSA 1978 § 59A-16-20(D)) | Medium |
| New York(NY) | 15 business days | 15 business days | 5 business days | Yes | High |
| North Carolina(NC) | 30 calendar days | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 60 calendar days | Yes | Medium |
| North Dakota(ND) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Reasonable time (no specific number) | Promptly (no specific number) | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | Medium |
| Ohio(OH) | 15 calendar days | 21 calendar days | 10 calendar days | YES (per Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trainor, 33 Ohio St. 2d 41 (1973)) | High |
| Oklahoma(OK) | 30 calendar days | 60 calendar days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | YES (per case law and OAC 365:15-3-5 to 365:15-3-7) | Medium |
| Oregon(OR) | 30 calendar days | 30 calendar days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | YES (OAR 836-080-0225 and ORS 746.230) | High |
| Pennsylvania(PA) | 10 business days | 15 business days | No specific statutory or regulatory requirement found | YES (per 31 Pa. Code § 146.7 and Selective Way Ins. Co. v. MAK Servs., Inc.) | High |
| Rhode Island(RI) | 15 calendar days | 21 calendar days | 30 calendar days | NO (Governed by common law pleadings test per Employers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Beals, 240 A.2d 397 (R.I. 1968)) | High |
| South Carolina(SC) | Promptly (no specific number) | Promptly (no specific number) | 90 calendar days | YES (per Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., 803 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2017)) | Medium |
| South Dakota(SD) | C30 (SDCL § 58-33-67(1)); PROMPTLY (SDCL § 58-12-34(2)); C15 to provide forms (SDCL § 58-12-34(13)) | REASONABLE (SDCL § 58-12-34(7)) | PROMPTLY (SDCL § 58-12-34(4)) | YES (per Kunkel v. United Sec. Ins. Co., 168 N.W.2d 723) | Medium |
| Tennessee(TN) | 30 calendar days | 60 calendar days | 30 calendar days | YES (per Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-8-105(7)) | Medium |
| Texas(TX) | C15 (B15 presumed reasonably prompt under 28 TAC § 21.203(2)) | B15 (extendable to C45 with notice) | 5 business days | YES (per Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1) | High |
| Utah(UT) | 15 calendar days | 30 calendar days | 30 calendar days | YES (per Summerhaze Co., L.C. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2014 UT 28) | High |
| Vermont(VT) | 10 business days | 15 business days | B10 (C60 for fire insurance) | Yes | High |
| Virginia(VA) | 15 calendar days | C15 (extendable with notice) | Promptly (no specific number) | Yes | High |
| Washington(WA) | 10 business days | 15 business days | 15 business days | YES (per WAC 284-30-380 and Tank v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 105 Wn.2d 381 (1986)) | High |
| West Virginia(WV) | 15 business days | 10 business days | 15 business days | Yes | High |
| Wisconsin(WI) | 10 calendar days | Reasonable time (no specific number) | 30 calendar days | Yes | High |
| Wyoming(WY) | Promptly (no specific number) | 45 calendar days | 45 calendar days | Yes | Medium |
Professional Liability Case Law
Recent and frequently cited professional liability decisions across the 50 states. State abbreviation appears after each case name — follow through to a jurisdiction page for the full list.
- Case Law
Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 371 Or. 772 (OR)
542 P.3d 24 (2023)
Status UpdatesProfessional LiabilityOverturned decades of precedent to hold that an insured can assert a common-law negligence per se claim and recover emotional distress damages when an insurer violates the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (ORS 746.230), which includes duties to act promptly upon communications. Current Status: Good law; landmark ruling actively being expanded by lower federal and state courts to commercial...
- Case Law
Pinto v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (CA)
61 Cal. App. 5th 676 (2021)
Bad FaithDuty to DefendAutoCommercial AutoCyberGeneral LiabilityInland / Ocean MarineProfessional LiabilityClarified the third-party failure-to-settle standard. Rejecting a strict liability approach, the court held that failing to accept a reasonable settlement demand within limits is not bad faith per se. The plaintiff must explicitly prove that the insurer's failure to settle was unreasonable under the circumstances .
- Reservation of RightsCommercial AutoHomeownersInland / Ocean MarineProfessional Liability
the court ruled that the "mere possibility" of a conflict is insufficient; the conflict must be significant and actual, and the coverage issue must be capable of being controlled by the appointed defense counsel in the underlying litigation .
- Case Law
Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co (CA)
63 Cal. 4th 363 (2016)
Bad FaithAutoCommercial PropertyGeneral LiabilityHomeownersProfessional LiabilityFor the purpose of calculating the constitutional ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, Brandt fees awarded by a trial court post-verdict must be included in the compensatory damages denominator . Context: The insurer wrongfully limited a paralyzed veteran's hospital stay benefits.
- Case Law
Reid v. Mercury Ins. Co (CA)
220 Cal. App. 4th 262 (2013)
Bad FaithDuty to DefendStatus UpdatesAutoGeneral LiabilityProfessional Liabilityheld that an insurer does not necessarily have an affirmative duty to settle absent a demand, subsequent commentary and cases (such as the principles affirmed in Hedayati and the Restatement of Liability Insurance) emphasize that insurers must proactively communicate with the insured about the risks of litigation.
- Case Law
Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co (CA)
42 Cal. 4th 713 (2007)
Bad FaithAutoCommercial PropertyCyberHomeownersInland / Ocean MarineProfessional LiabilityWorkers' CompClarified and limited the "genuine dispute doctrine." The court held that a dispute is not "genuine" (and thus cannot defeat a bad faith claim as a matter of law) unless the insurer's position is maintained in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
Show 6 more cases
- Case Law
Elacqua v. Physicians' Reciprocal Insurers (NY)
21 A.D.3d 702 (2005)
Duty to DefendReservation of RightsCommercial AutoProfessional LiabilityAn insurer has an affirmative obligation to inform the insured of their right to select independent counsel at the insurer's expense when a conflict of interest exists.
- Case Law
Sloan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 135 N.M. 106 (NM)
85 P.3d 230 (2004)
Bad FaithProfessional LiabilityResponding to a certified question from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the New Mexico Supreme Court clarified the standard for punitive damages in bad faith cases.
- Case LawReservation of RightsCommercial AutoGeneral LiabilityHomeownersInland / Ocean MarineProfessional Liability
25 Cal.4th 489, the Court held that an insurer may fund a settlement of a potentially uncovered claim and later seek reimbursement from the insured. To do so, the insurer must not only have an initial ROR, but must explicitly notify the insured of the intent to accept the settlement and offer the insured the opportunity to assume their own defense .
- Case LawDuty to DefendReservation of RightsAutoCommercial AutoGeneral LiabilityHomeownersInland / Ocean MarineProfessional LiabilityWorkers' Comp
16 Cal.4th 35 . When a lawsuit involves a mix of covered and uncovered claims, the insurer must defend the entire action . However, Buss established that an insurer has a quasi-contractual right to seek reimbursement from the insured for defense costs that can be allocated solely to claims that were never even potentially covered by the policy .
- Case Law
Miller v. Fluharty (WV)
500 S.E.2d 310 (1997)
Status UpdatesProfessional Liabilitythe West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals established a definitive proactive duty: "An insurance carrier has a duty, once a first-party policyholder has submitted proof of a loss, to promptly conduct a reasonable investigation...
- Reservation of RightsAutoHomeownersProfessional Liability
46 Cal.App.4th 1810, the court found the insurer estopped from denying coverage after delaying its reservation for two and a half years, identifying the insured's detriment as the loss of the right to independent counsel and adequate trial preparation time . Similarly, in Miller v.
Historical court cases are for reference only and may be superseded, distinguished, or abrogated.
Applicable Letter Templates
- Coverage Investigationreservation of rights
- FNOL / Intakeacknowledgment
- Coverage Investigationstatus
- Denial / Closurefull denial
- Denial / Closurepartial denial
- Payment & Settlementpayment
- Coverage Investigationcoverage investigation
- Coverage Investigationreservation of rights
