Hawaii Adjuster Insurance Exam 2026

Five Credentials, and One of Them Reviews Medical Bills

The Hawaii adjuster license is issued by the Insurance Division of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) under Article 9 of chapter 431, the Insurance Code. The article's caption is the first thing that should slow you down: "Licensing of Adjusters and Bill Reviewers."

HRS §431:9-101 states the scope: the article "shall govern the qualifications and procedures for granting licenses to all insurance adjusters and independent bill reviewers." That sentence carries two nouns, and the second one is a credential that scarcely exists anywhere else.

There are five things you can hold or obtain under Article 9, and they are not five licenses. Three are full licenses, one is a limited license, and one is not a license at all:

1. Independent adjuster. 2. Public adjuster. HRS §431:9-224 governs both: "The commissioner may license an individual as an independent adjuster or as a public adjuster, and separate licenses shall be required for each type of adjuster." The same section permits holding both — "An individual may be concurrently licensed under separate licenses as an independent adjuster and as a public adjuster" — and then adds the sentence that costs money: "The full license fee shall be paid for each license."

3. Claims adjuster's limited license. HRS §431:9-222.5 provides that "the commissioner may issue a limited license to an adjuster who only adjusts either workers' compensation or crop insurance claims." Read that carefully. The Insurance Division's own pages present a "workers' compensation adjuster" and a "crop adjuster" as two separate license types. The statute issues ONE limited license and describes two ways to qualify for it. The fee schedule corroborates the statute rather than the agency page: HRS §431:7-101 prices an "Independent adjuster's license," a "Public adjuster's license," a "Claims adjuster's limited license" and an "Independent bill reviewer's license" — there is no separate crop line and no separate workers' compensation line anywhere in it.

4. Independent bill reviewer. HRS §431:9-243 sets its own qualifications, and HRS §431:9-206 requires an examination of "each applicant for license as an adjuster or independent bill reviewer" alike. This is a licensed professional who reviews medical bills on claims — a function that in most states is performed by an unlicensed vendor. If you are moving to Hawaii from a state that has never heard of it, that is because most have not.

5. Nonresident catastrophe registration. This is not a license. HRS §431:9-201(b) suspends the license requirement for a nonresident adjuster following a declaration by the Commissioner, and permits that adjuster to be "registered with the commissioner." The Division markets this as an "Emergency Independent Adjuster" registration; that phrase appears nowhere in the statute.

And holding two licenses does not let you use two on one claim. HRS §431:9-226: "An adjuster licensed concurrently as both an independent and a public adjuster is not permitted to represent both the insurer and the insured in the same transaction."

There Is No Exemptions Section — the Carve-Outs Live Inside the Definition

This is the most important structural fact in Hawaii licensing, and it is easy to miss because you will go looking for the wrong thing.

Article 9 has no exemptions section. The article's sections can be listed end to end — 431:9-101, -102, -105, -201, -202, -203, -204, -205, -206, -207, -208, -209, -210, -222, -222.5, -223, -224, -225, -226, -227, -228, -229, -230, -231, -232, -234.5, -235, -235.5, -236, -237, -238, -239, -240, -241, -242, -243, -244 and -301 — and not one of them is captioned for exemptions or exceptions to licensure.

That is because the mandate is written against a defined term, and the carve-outs sit inside the definition. HRS §431:9-201(a): "No person engaging in the business of insurance in this State shall act as, be appointed as, or hold oneself out to be an adjuster or independent bill reviewer unless so licensed by this State." If you are not an "adjuster" as HRS §431:9-105 defines the word, the sentence never reaches you.

HRS §431:9-105 builds the definition positively and then removes four categories. On the positive side, an adjuster is an individual who "Acts solely on behalf of either the insurer or the insured, as an independent contractor or as an employee of an independent contractor" and who investigates, reports on, or adjusts claims. Note that employees of an independent adjusting contractor are INSIDE the definition and do need a license.

The four exclusions are:

(A) Attorneys, but only incidentally — "An attorney at law who adjusts insurance losses from time to time incidental to the practice of the attorney's profession." The qualifier does work: an attorney whose practice is loss adjusting is not covered by this.

(B) Marine loss adjusters — "An adjuster of marine losses." Flat and unqualified.

(C) Salaried employees of an insurer — "A salaried employee of an insurer or salaried employee of an adjusting corporation or an association owned or controlled by an insurer."

(D) Self-insurers and self-administered groups — "An individual who acts for a self-insurer or for an insured that administers its own group insurance contract."

Licensed producers are NOT on that list. Hawaii does not exempt a producer who adjusts; it restricts one. HRS §431:9-227: "An adjuster who is a producer is not permitted to adjust or cause the adjustment of any loss where the adjuster's remuneration for the sale of insurance is primarily dependent upon the adjustment of the loss." The section then carries a grandfather clause that has been sitting in the code untouched for seventy-one years: "This section shall not be applicable to any producer whose remuneration for the sale of insurance, on December 31, 1955, was primarily dependent upon the adjustment of losses."

Unlicensed adjusting is expensive. HRS §431:9-201(c): "Any person violating this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each factually different violation." HRS §431:9-201(d): "Any person who knowingly violates this section shall be assessed a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000 for each violation." And HRS §431:9-201(e) makes the arithmetic worse: "Each repetition of an act that constitutes a violation subject to subsection (c) or (d) shall constitute a separate violation."

Domicile, Character and Experience — and Not One Classroom Hour

HRS §431:9-222(a) sets what an applicant for an adjuster's license must satisfy. The four requirements are domicile, trustworthiness and competence, a passing examination score, and payment of the fees:

(1) Domicile, with a reciprocal alternative — "Be domiciled in this State, or in a state that will permit residents of this State to act as adjusters in the other state."

(3) The examination — "Have successfully passed any examination required under section 431:9-206."

(4) The fees — "Have paid the license fees required by section 431:7-101."

There is no prelicensing course requirement, and the proof is the enumeration above rather than an unsuccessful search. All thirty-eight sections of Article 9 were listed and read. None sets a course-hour figure. That matters because the failure mode in this area is not an absent requirement — it is a producer requirement sitting inside an adjuster chapter and being read as though it applied. Hawaii does not have one: HRS §431:9-206 is written for "each applicant for license as an adjuster or independent bill reviewer," and the producer licensing machinery lives in a different article entirely, Article 9A, which is closed by its own scope clause.

What Hawaii asks for instead is competence demonstrated some other way. The qualification standard speaks in terms of experience, special education or training rather than seat time — the same shape used by a number of states that decline to prescribe hours.

The two credentials that DO have an education-shaped requirement replace the examination rather than adding to it. For the crop route, HRS §431:9-222.5(a)(3) accepts "a passing grade on an examination approved by the Risk Management Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture" — administered in practice as a valid, unexpired Crop Adjuster Proficiency Program (CAPP) card, which the Division requires you to file through NIPR's Attachments Warehouse within 7 days of submitting the application. For the bill reviewer, HRS §431:9-243 exempts a holder of listed coding credentials from the domicile, experience and examination requirements alike; the Division names the Certified Professional Coder credential granted by the American Academy of Professional Coders, and credentials from the American Health Information Management Association.

Fingerprints are required, and the sequence is prescribed. Appointments are scheduled through Fieldprint Hawaii, and every applicant enters the recipient code HI-DCCA-INS so results reach the Insurance Division. The Division then requires you to "Submit your completed license application and applicable licensing fee within 60 days of the date of fingerprinting." Print first, apply second, and do not let sixty days pass in between.

No Reciprocity on the Examination, Reciprocity on the Domicile

The Insurance Division states the position in one flat sentence: "There is no reciprocity for adjusters. All individuals – residents and nonresidents – are required to successfully pass the Hawaii Insurance License Exam (except crop adjuster)."

That sentence is right about the examination and incomplete about the rest.

On the examination it is correct, and the statute backs it. HRS §431:9-206 provides: "Prior to the issuance of the license, each applicant for license as an adjuster or independent bill reviewer shall personally take and pass to the satisfaction of the commissioner an examination given by the commissioner." There is no residency qualifier in that sentence and no nonresident waiver anywhere in the article. A nonresident who holds an adjuster license in twelve other states still sits the Hawaii examination.

On the domicile requirement, the statute does contain a reciprocal provision that the Division's sentence does not acknowledge. HRS §431:9-222(a)(1) requires an applicant to "Be domiciled in this State, or in a state that will permit residents of this State to act as adjusters in the other state." The same test is repeated for the limited license at HRS §431:9-222.5(a)(1) and for the bill reviewer at HRS §431:9-243(1), in each case phrased as "or in a state that permits residents of the State of Hawaii to act as adjusters in that other state."

The two provisions are reconcilable, and the distinction is worth learning because it is exactly the kind of thing an examination writer likes. §431:9-222(a)(1) is reciprocity of eligibility — it lifts the Hawaii-domicile bar for a resident of an accommodating state. It is not reciprocity of examination, because §431:9-206 separately requires the examination of every applicant. So: a nonresident may apply, and a nonresident must still test.

The crop carve-out is statutory, not agency practice. The Division's "(except crop adjuster)" is doing real work, and its source is HRS §431:9-222.5(a)(3), which accepts an RMA-approved examination in place of the state's.

Fees do not vary by residency. NIPR prices the independent adjuster, workers' compensation adjuster and crop insurance adjuster credentials at $165 on the resident and the nonresident pages alike.

One Limited License, Two Ways In, and a Renewal Nobody Expects

HRS §431:9-222.5 creates a single instrument: "The commissioner may issue a limited license to an adjuster who only adjusts either workers' compensation or crop insurance claims."

The qualification routes differ by line. Both require the same domicile test as a full license under subsection (a)(1). The crop applicant satisfies the examination requirement with "a passing grade on an examination approved by the Risk Management Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture" — the CAPP card. The workers' compensation applicant sits the Hawaii Workers Compensation Adjuster examination: 25 scored questions in 45 minutes.

And then there is subsection (b), which is the single most surprising sentence in Hawaii adjuster licensing. HRS §431:9-222.5(b): "An adjuster with a limited license issued under this section may extend the license biennially upon successfully passing a reexamination."

The Insurance Division states it operationally: "For work comp adjuster: You are required to retake and successfully pass the Hawaii Insurance License Exam for renewal."

Read that against the fact that Hawaii imposes no continuing education on anyone. Most states that drop continuing education simply have no competence-refresh mechanism. Hawaii has one, and it is the bluntest available: you sit the examination again, every two years, for as long as you hold the limited license.

Note also that subsection (b) is where a fixed term appears. The limited license extends "biennially." The full adjuster licenses do not work that way at all — see Term and Renewal — and the difference between a statutory biennial cycle for one credential and a Commissioner-determined date for the others sits inside a single article.

A Licensed Credential Almost No Other State Has

The article is captioned for adjusters and bill reviewers, and the second noun is not decoration.

HRS §431:9-243 sets the qualifications: "To qualify for an independent bill reviewer's license, an applicant shall comply with this article." It then supplies an exemption that is unusually broad. A holder of the listed professional coding credentials "shall be exempt from the requirements in paragraphs (1) to (3)" — which sweeps away the domicile requirement, the experience requirement and the examination requirement together.

The Insurance Division names the qualifying credentials in operational terms: "You must hold credentials as a Certified Professional Coder granted by the American Academy of Professional Coders or American Health Information Management Association," and requires that "You must submit your credentials via NIPR's Attachments Warehouse (within 7 days from the date the online application is submitted)."

The fees are their own line in the schedule and they are higher than an adjuster's. HRS §431:7-101(a): "Independent bill reviewer's license: Issuance ....$80." HRS §431:7-101(b): "$60 per year for all services (including extension of the license) for a regularly licensed independent bill reviewer." NIPR prices the application at $200, which is $80 plus two years at $60.

Everything else in Article 9 applies to the bill reviewer as it does to an adjuster. The license requirement in §431:9-201 names "an adjuster or independent bill reviewer." The examination section names both. The inactivation and reinstatement machinery in §431:9-232 names both. And the discipline section names both — including the version that takes effect on 1 January 2027.

Ninety Questions, 105 Minutes — and the Counts Are in a Second Document

Hawaii's examinations are delivered by Pearson VUE, and the facts about them are split across two official Pearson VUE documents. A guide that cites only the first one cannot tell you how many questions you will face.

The candidate handbook, #121200, revision January 2026, carries the exam codes, the names, the content type and the time limits — and no question counts at all. The examination content outlines, #121201, dated 01/2026, carry the question counts — and no time limits.

Hawaii Adjuster — exam code InsHI-Adj14 — 105 minutes (handbook), "80 scoreable questions plus 10 pretest questions" (content outlines). Ninety items on the screen, eighty of which count.

Hawaii Workers Compensation Adjuster — exam code InsHI-WCAdj09 — 45 minutes (handbook), "25 scoreable questions" (content outlines).

One examination, two licenses. There is a single Hawaii Adjuster examination and it stands behind both the independent adjuster license and the public adjuster license. There is no separate public adjuster examination.

The workers' compensation adjuster outline states no pretest count. It says "(25 scoreable questions)" and stops. Whether that means there are no unscored items or simply that the number is not disclosed is not stated by either document, so this guide publishes 25 scored and does not publish a total.

Delivery. Both a test center seat and OnVUE online proctoring are available — the Division confirms that "All Hawaii Insurance exams will be available for administration through Pearson's online proctoring process in addition to test center" delivery, and that "Walk-in testing is not available." Registration is through Pearson VUE.

Veterans may be reimbursed for the cost of a Hawaii insurance licensing examination; the Division's examination page carries the detail.

A Scaled 70 — and the Handbook Says So in Terms

The number is 70. It is not a percentage, and the candidate handbook goes out of its way to say so.

From handbook #121200: "The scaled score that is reported to you is neither the number of questions you answered correctly nor the percentage of questions you answered correctly."

And: "Raw scores are converted into scaled scores."

And, on what a failing number means: "With a passing score of 70, any score below 70 indicates how close the candidate came to passing, rather than the actual number or percentage of questions the candidates answered correctly."

The reason is form equating — "a statistical procedure known as equating is used to correct for differences in form difficulty" — so that a candidate who draws a harder form is not penalized for it.

The required figure is stated in the handbook's own table: "The following scores shall be required for all applicants for each examination as a qualification for licensure: Adjusters ... 70," set "by the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (in conjunction with Pearson VUE) after a comprehensive study was completed for each examination."

Where the figure does NOT come from is worth stating plainly: no Hawaii statute and no located administrative rule sets a passing score at all. HRS §431:9-206 delegates the whole question — an applicant must "take and pass to the satisfaction of the commissioner an examination given by the commissioner." There is no number in the Insurance Code, and the Insurance Division's rules under Title 16 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules contain no examination chapter. The 70 is a department-set cut score published by the vendor.

One more thing the handbook tells you about your result: "To avoid misuse of score information, numeric scores are only reported to failing candidates." If you pass, "they will receive a score report marked 'pass' or 'fail'" without a number. Only failure comes with a figure.

Twenty-Four Hours at a Test Center, Two Weeks Online

The retake wait depends entirely on how you took the examination, and the gap between the two channels is enormous.

Test center. Handbook #121200: "Candidates who take an exam in a Test Center and do not pass must wait 24 hours to retest for that exam in a Test Center after each not pass result."

OnVUE online proctoring. "Candidates who take an online proctored exam and do not pass must wait two weeks to retest for that exam on OnVUE if this is their first time." And it escalates: "Any additional OnVUE retests after the first OnVUE retest will require the candidate to wait four weeks after each subsequent not pass result."

That is one day against fourteen, and then twenty-eight. For a candidate on a licensing deadline, the choice of delivery channel is a scheduling decision, not a comfort decision.

Attempt cap: none is published. The handbook states no limit on the number of attempts.

Score shelf life: none is published. The handbook states no period within which a passing score must be used.

Both of those are reported here as silences rather than as permissions. Hawaii does not say the attempts are unlimited; it says nothing. If you are planning around either, ask the Insurance Division.

The fee is charged per attempt. "The examination fee ($75) must be paid by credit card, debit card, or voucher when a reservation is made," and "Examination fees are non-refundable and non-transferable, except as detailed in the Change/Cancel Policy."

An Unpublished Fee and a Sequence You Can Get Wrong

Fingerprinting is required, and the Insurance Division prescribes both the vendor and the order of operations.

The vendor. "To obtain fingerprints, schedule an appointment online at https://www.fieldprinthawaii.com."

The recipient code. "All applicants must enter 'HI-DCCA-INS', the code that identifies the Insurance Division as the intended recipient of fingerprint result[s]." Entering the wrong code sends your results somewhere that will not use them.

The sequence, and this is the trap. "Submit your completed license application and applicable licensing fee within 60 days of the date of fingerprinting." Fingerprints come first, and the application must follow inside sixty days. A candidate who applies first and prints later, or who prints and then takes three months to apply, is out of sequence.

The fee is not published, and that is a feature of the statute rather than an omission by the Division. HRS §431:7-101(a) provides: "Criminal history record check; fingerprinting: For each criminal history record check and fingerprinting check, a fee to be established by the commissioner." There is no amount and no cap in the statute. The Division's own page says only that "Fees collected by Fieldprint include state and federal submission fees" — without a figure. Fieldprint's Hawaii scheduling site is a JavaScript application that publishes no fee text.

This guide therefore does not publish a fingerprint figure. Numbers in the region of $65 circulate on commercial licensing sites. None of them traces to the Commissioner, to the Division, or to Fieldprint's own published material, and the statute that would ordinarily anchor such a figure declines to set one. Confirm the charge when you book the appointment.

The Statute Prices It in Two Pieces; NIPR Charges You One Number

The single figure you will actually pay is $165 through NIPR for any of the four adjuster credentials the Division lists — independent adjuster, public adjuster, workers' compensation adjuster and crop insurance adjuster — resident and nonresident alike. The independent bill reviewer pays $200.

But the statute does not contain either number. HRS §431:7-101 builds them from two components.

Issuance, from §431:7-101(a): "Independent adjuster's license: Issuance .........$75" · "Public adjuster's license: Issuance ..............$75" · "Claims adjuster's limited license: Issuance ......$75" · "Independent bill reviewer's license: Issuance ....$80."

Annual service and extension, from §431:7-101(b): "$45 per year for all services (including extension of the license)" for each adjuster type, and "$60 per year ... for a regularly licensed independent bill reviewer."

$75 + $45 + $45 = $165. $80 + $60 + $60 = $200. The arithmetic is exact, and it is consistent with an initial term of two years — but no source states a two-year initial term, and the term provision says something different (see Term and Renewal). Do not reason from the fee to the term.

Two fees in the schedule carry no amount at all: "Examination for license: For each examination, a fee to be established by the commissioner," and the fingerprinting line quoted above. The examination fee as actually set and published by the vendor is $75 per attempt.

Everything is nonrefundable. HRS §431:7-101(f): "All fees and penalties are nonrefundable and shall be deposited to the credit of the compliance resolution fund."

Late payment costs double. HRS §431:7-101(d): "If the fee is not paid before or on the renewal date for a license or registration, the fee shall be increased by a penalty in the amount of double the unpaid renewal fee." HRS §431:7-101(e) adds that failure to pay "shall cause the automatic inactivation" of the license.

Other NIPR lines: reinstatement after a voluntary surrender is $120; there is no fee to add a line of authority — "All fees are per application."

And holding both full licenses costs both fees. HRS §431:9-224: "The full license fee shall be paid for each license."

The Commissioner Picks Your Expiration Date, Somewhere Between One and Three Years

Hawaii has no statewide adjuster expiration date, no fixed term, and no birth-month convention. This is one of the most commonly misstated facts about the state.

HRS §431:9-232(c) puts the date in the Commissioner's hands, individually, for each licensee: "When the commissioner issues or extends a license, the commissioner shall: (1) Determine the extension date, which is that date prior to which the license must be extended; and (2) Notify the licensee in writing of the extension date."

And it then bounds the discretion rather than fixing it: "The extension date shall be any date not less than one year and not more than three years after the date of the issue or the last extension of the license."

So the answer to "when does my Hawaii adjuster license expire?" is: read the letter. Neither the Insurance Division's adjuster pages nor NIPR publishes a term or an expiration convention, because there is none to publish.

There is one exception inside the same article, and it is statutory. HRS §431:9-222.5(b) gives the claims adjuster's limited license a fixed cycle: the holder "may extend the license biennially upon successfully passing a reexamination." A biennial term for the limited license; a Commissioner-determined one-to-three-year date for the full licenses.

Do not reason backwards from the fee. The $165 application equals the $75 issuance fee plus two years of the $45 annual fee, which is suggestive of a two-year initial term. It is not a source. The statute says one to three years and says the Commissioner decides.

Twelve Months at Double the Fees — Then You Are a New Applicant

Inactivation is automatic and it is triggered by money, not by conduct. HRS §431:9-232(b): "A license for an adjuster or independent bill reviewer shall be inactivated if a licensee fails to pay any required fees or penalties." HRS §431:7-101(e) says the same thing from the fee side: failure to pay "shall cause the automatic inactivation" of the license.

There is a twelve-month window to come back without testing again, and it is expensive. HRS §431:9-232(b) permits reinstatement "without the necessity of a written examination; provided that the adjuster or independent bill reviewer: (1) Pays the fee and a penalty in the amount of double the then-unpaid fees within twelve months from the inactivation date; and (2) Is in compliance with all the requirements of chapter 431."

After twelve months, the door closes. The Insurance Division states the consequence in operational terms: "If you held a Hawaii license that has been inactive for more than one year, you must apply as a new applicant." New application, new fingerprints, new examination.

Voluntary surrender is handled separately. NIPR carries a $120 "Voluntary Surrender Reinstatement" line, and states that applicants reinstating "after surrendering their license and within 1 year after their license termination date will not be charged an issuance fee."

One published inconsistency, stated rather than resolved. NIPR's resident page says "An exam is not required if a license is reactivated within one (1) year of inactivation." NIPR's nonresident adjuster page says "Licenses are subject to reactivation if they are within two years." The statute — HRS §431:9-232(b) — speaks only of "twelve months from the inactivation date." Both vendor statements are reported here; neither is adopted over the statute.

There Is None, and the Proof Is a Repeal

Hawaii imposes no continuing education on any adjuster or on an independent bill reviewer. Zero hours.

This is not an absence found by searching. It is a repeal, printed in the official statutes. Part III of Article 9 was headed "CONTINUING EDUCATION." What the Hawaii Revised Statutes render at that location today is two lines:

"PART III. CONTINUING EDUCATION--REPEALED" · "§§431:9-301 to 431:9-305 REPEALED. L 2002, c 155, §108."

The obvious way for a duty like that to come back is from the producer side, and that route is closed by a scope clause. Producer continuing education lives in Article 9A, and Article 9A is sealed at its first section. HRS §431:9A-101: "This article governs qualifications and procedures for the licensing of insurance producers." HRS §431:9A-102 defines "licensee" as "any type of insurance producer or producer." And the credit-hour duty at HRS §431:9A-124(a) is keyed to "a licensee" as so defined — "To qualify for a license renewal, a licensee shall: (1) Preceding a license renewal, complete the required number of credit hours."

An adjuster is not inside that definition, so the duty never reaches one.

The agency layer agrees. The Insurance Division's continuing education page describes the requirement as one owed by "individual resident insurance producers" and never names adjusters; the Division's adjuster page says nothing about continuing education at all.

What Hawaii has instead, for one credential only, is a reexamination. HRS §431:9-222.5(b): the holder of a claims adjuster's limited license "may extend the license biennially upon successfully passing a reexamination." The independent adjuster and the public adjuster owe neither continuing education nor a reexamination.

The Grounds You Are Tested On Today Are Replaced on 1 January 2027

This is the one part of Hawaii adjuster law that is in motion right now, and both versions matter.

Today, and until 31 December 2026, discipline runs on HRS §431:9-235, captioned "Denial, suspension, revocation of licenses," under which the Commissioner may "suspend, revoke, or refuse to extend any license issued under this article ... for any cause specified in any other provision of this article, or for any of the following causes," followed by an eight-item list. The causes include any ground on which issuance could have been refused; wilful violation of, or knowing participation in a violation of, the Insurance Code; obtaining a license through wilful misrepresentation or fraud, or failing the required examination; misappropriation or conversion of money; material misrepresentation with intent to deceive; and having been found to have committed an unfair practice.

The fine sits in a separate section. HRS §431:9-238(a) currently permits the Commissioner, "in addition to or in lieu of suspension, revocation, or refusal to extend any license, after a hearing," to "levy a fine upon the licensee in an amount not less than $100 and not more than $10,000."

From 1 January 2027, both sections are replaced. 2026 Act 040 (HB2282) rewrites them, and section 8 of the act is explicit: "This Act shall take effect upon its approval; provided that sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall take effect on January 1, 2027." Section 2 is §431:9-235 and section 3 is §431:9-238.

What changes in §431:9-235. The caption becomes "Disciplinary licensing actions." The chapeau gains new sanctions and an express power to stack a fine: the Commissioner may "deny, place on probation, suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue or renew any license issued under this article and may levy a civil penalty in accordance with section 431:9-238." And the eight-item list is struck and replaced with seventeen grounds.

The new grounds that have no counterpart in current law include: "Having been convicted of a felony"; "Having an adjuster or independent bill reviewer license or its equivalent denied, placed on probation, suspended, or revoked in any other state, province, district, or territory"; "Forging another's name on an application or on any document related to a transaction"; "Improperly using notes or any other reference material while taking an examination for an insurance license"; "Accepting insurance business from a person who is not licensed"; "Failing to comply with an administrative or court order imposing a child support obligation"; "Failing to pay federal or state income taxes"; and "Using fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest practice or demonstrating incompetence, untrustworthiness, or financial irresponsibility in the conduct of business in this State or elsewhere." The hearing-request window also moves from fifteen days to ten.

What changes in §431:9-238 — and what does not. The amended subsection reads: "In addition to or in lieu of an action by the commissioner under section 431:9-235, the commissioner may levy a fine upon the applicant or licensee in an amount of no less than $100 and no more than $10,000." The dollar range does not move. What moves is everything around it: the fine now attaches to any §431:9-235 action including denial and probation, it can be levied on an applicant who has no license to lose, and the words "after a hearing" are struck from the chapeau.

Ten Thousand Dollars, Perpetual, and You May Post Cash Instead

HRS §431:9-223(a) requires the bond before the license issues and for as long as it is held: "Prior to the issuance of a license as a public adjuster, the applicant for such license shall file with the commissioner and shall maintain in force while so licensed, a surety bond in favor of this State," "in the amount of $10,000."

The bond may be perpetual. "The bond may be written without an expiration date and total aggregate liability on the bond may be limited to the payment of $10,000." That is a genuine aggregate — one $10,000 exposure across the life of the bond, not $10,000 per year and not $10,000 per claimant.

The surety cannot walk away quietly. HRS §431:9-223(b): "the surety may cancel a bond upon sixty days advance notice in writing filed with the commissioner."

And you do not have to buy a bond at all. HRS §431:9-223(c) offers a deposit alternative that many public adjusters do not know exists: "the licensee may, in lieu of such bond, maintain on deposit with the commissioner a like amount in cash or securities approved by the commissioner."

The licensing hook is a cross-reference. HRS §431:9-222(b) makes the bond a condition of the license itself: "an applicant for a public adjuster's license must file the bond required by section 431:9-223."

Operationally, the Insurance Division requires the filed bond to be attached through NIPR: "For public adjuster: Submit copy of the filed surety bond in the amount of $10,000 through NIPR's Attachments Warehouse within 7 days" of submitting the online application.

Independent adjusters and limited licensees post no bond. The requirement is specific to the public adjuster credential.

No Percentage Cap — and a 72-Hour Rule That Erases the Commission

Most states cap a public adjuster's fee at a percentage — ten percent, fifteen percent, sometimes more after a declared catastrophe. Hawaii caps nothing, and regulates reasonableness instead.

HRS §431:9-244(c): "No public adjuster shall charge, agree to, or accept as compensation or reimbursement any payment, fee, commission, or other thing of value that is determined to be unreasonable by the commissioner."

The same subsection then requires precision if a percentage is used: "If the compensation is based on a share of the insurance settlement or proceeds, the exact percentage shall be specified in the contract."

So: no number, but the Commissioner may find your number unreasonable after the fact, and the contract must state it exactly. A fifty-state chart that assigns Hawaii a percentage has invented one.

And then there is subsection (d), which is the most distinctive provision in the whole article. HRS §431:9-244(d): if the insurer, "no later than seventy-two hours after the date on which the loss is reported to the insurer, either pays or commits in writing to pay the insured the limits of any coverage," the public adjuster shall "Not receive a commission consisting of a percentage of the total amount paid by an insurer to resolve a claim."

Read what that does. A carrier that moves fast enough — inside three days of first notice — and tenders or commits in writing to policy limits strips the percentage commission out of the public adjuster's contract by operation of statute. The public adjuster is not forbidden to be paid; the percentage mechanism is switched off.

Conflicts must be disclosed in writing. HRS §431:9-244(e): a public adjuster "shall provide the insured a written disclosure concerning any direct or indirect financial interest that the public adjuster has with any other party who is involved in any aspect of the claim" — construction, salvage, appraisal and repair interests being the usual candidates.

Twelve Required Terms, Three Forbidden Ones, and Three Business Days to Walk Away

HRS §431:9-244(a): "All contracts for services provided by a public adjuster shall be in writing and contain the following terms" — a list of twelve, beginning with the requirement that the document be headed "Title of 'Public Adjuster Contract'" and running through the adjuster's license number, an attestation as to the bond, and the signature dates of both parties.

HRS §431:9-244(b) forbids three terms outright. A contract may not contain a provision that: "(1) Requires the insured to authorize an insurance company to issue a check only in the name of the public adjuster; (2) Imposes collection costs or late fees; or (3) Precludes the insured from pursuing civil remedies."

The rescission right is three business days, and the clock starts at signature. HRS §431:9-244(f): "The insured shall have the right to rescind the contract within three business days after the date the contract was signed."

It must be exercised in writing and delivered to the address in the contract. "The rescission shall be in writing and mailed or delivered to the public adjuster at the address in the contract within the three business-day period."

And the refund clock is fifteen business days. HRS §431:9-244(g): "anything of value given by the insured under the contract shall be returned to the insured within fifteen business days following the receipt of the cancellation notice by the public adjuster."

Two details in those sentences are worth isolating, because they are exactly what a national course gets wrong. First, business days, not calendar days, in both the rescission window and the refund window. Second, the trigger is the date the contract was signed — not the date a physical copy was delivered to the insured, which is the trigger a number of states use. If a course taught you to count from delivery, you will count from the wrong day in Hawaii.

A Registration, Not a License — and the Firm Files It, Not You

HRS §431:9-201(b) does not create a temporary license. It disapplies the license requirement, on conditions, and then permits a registration.

The Commissioner has to open the door first. "Notwithstanding subsection (a), following a declaration by the commissioner authorizing assistance of nonresident adjusters, a Hawaii license shall not be required of a nonresident adjuster for the adjustment of losses." No declaration, no route.

The severity finding, §431:9-201(b)(1). The losses must be "a direct result of an event and are so severe that licensed adjusters and licensed independent adjusters who are residents of this State will be unable to adjust the losses within a reasonable time as determined by the commissioner."

No Hawaii examination — a home-state license stands in, §431:9-201(b)(2). "The nonresident adjuster provides the commissioner a certified copy of the adjuster's current license in another state. The other state shall have substantially similar licensing requirements to section 431:9-222."

The filing duty sits on the company, not on the adjuster, §431:9-201(b)(3). "Within three working days of the commencement of work by the nonresident adjuster, the insurance company, independent adjusting company, or producer that is using the adjuster shall provide on its letterhead to the commissioner: (A) The name of the nonresident adjuster; (B) The nonresident adjuster's Hawaii mailing and business addresses and phone numbers; and (C) The nonresident adjuster's permanent home and business addresses and phone numbers."

The clock on the work itself is 120 days, or less. "the nonresident adjuster may be registered with the commissioner and adjust the event's losses in this State for up to one hundred twenty days from the date of registration or for a period of time determined by the commissioner, whichever is less."

And "event" is defined in-line, and it is confined to property. "As used in this subsection, 'event' means insured property losses in Hawaii that result from a sudden, specific, and natural or manmade disaster or phenomenon, as determined by the commissioner."

That definition has a consequence people miss: the catastrophe route is not available for a casualty, liability or workers' compensation surge. It is a property mechanism.

Hawaii Has No Claims Regulation — the Statute Is the Rule

This is where Hawaii departs from almost every other state, and the departure is structural rather than a matter of degree.

Most states enact the NAIC Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act and then adopt the matching regulation, and the regulation is where the numbers live. Hawaii adopted no such regulation. The Insurance Division's chapters under Title 16 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules can be listed end to end — proxies of domestic stock insurers, mass merchandising of motor vehicle insurance, credit life and credit disability, the medical malpractice underwriting plan, Medicare supplement standards, the insurance holding company system, captive insurance companies, the life and disability guaranty association summary document, premium tax credit, life and health reinsurance agreements, the motor vehicle insurance law, credit for reinsurance, actuarial opinion and memorandum, disclosure of material transactions, miscellaneous insurance rules, insurance regulation fund assessments, the special mortgage recording fee guidelines, annual audited financial reporting, corporate governance annual disclosure, and term and universal life reserve financing — and not one of them addresses claims, claim settlement, or unfair claim settlement practices.

The one plausible candidate is the motor vehicle rule, and it does not carry claim-handling standards either. Its eighteen subchapters cover general provisions, required coverage, optional coverage, rejection and cancellation, licensing of insurers, self-insurance, the driver education fund, miscellaneous provisions, statistical reporting, the joint underwriting plan, the administration revolving fund, the fee schedule and utilization guidelines, and peer review. There is no claim-handling subchapter.

So the answer to "where do I find Hawaii's claim rules?" is: HRS §431:13-103(a)(11), and nowhere else. Anyone hunting for a Hawaii claims regulation is hunting for something that does not exist.

The prohibition itself sits one section earlier. HRS §431:13-102: "No person shall engage in this State in any trade practice which is defined in this article as, or determined pursuant to section 431:13-106 to be, an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance." Note the subject of that sentence — "No person." Not "no insurer."

And the frequency element is in the statute. HRS §431:13-103(a)(11) opens: "Unfair claim settlement practices. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following:" — followed by seventeen enumerated acts, lettered (A) through (Q).

That element cuts one way and not the other. A single mishandled file is not a §431:13-103(a)(11) violation. A single mishandled file can be common-law bad faith, which has no frequency element at all. State both halves or the picture misleads.

Fifteen Working Days, Thirty Calendar Days — in the Same Paragraph

HRS §431:13-103(a)(11) carries three real numbers and two deliberate blanks, and it mixes its day conventions between adjacent subparagraphs. That mixture is the single most testable thing in Hawaii claim practice.

RESPOND — fifteen WORKING days. Subparagraph (B). It is an unfair claim settlement practice to be "failing to respond with reasonable promptness, in no case more than fifteen working days, to communications received from: (i) The insurer's policyholder; (ii) Any other persons, including the commissioner; or (iii) The insurer of a person involved in an incident in which the insurer's policyholder is also involved."

And the same subparagraph tells you what a response is not: "The response shall be more than an acknowledgment that such person's communication has been received, and shall adequately address the concerns stated in the communication."

OFFER PAYMENT — thirty CALENDAR days. Subparagraph (F). "Failing to offer payment within thirty calendar days of affirmation of liability, if the amount of the claim has been determined and is not in dispute."

EXPLAIN THE DELAY — thirty CALENDAR days. Subparagraph (G). "Failing to provide the insured, or when applicable the insured's beneficiary, with a reasonable written explanation for any delay, on every claim remaining unresolved for thirty calendar days from the date it was reported."

AFFIRM OR DENY — no number. Subparagraph (E). "Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed."

INVESTIGATE — no number. Subparagraph (C). "Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies."

THERE IS NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT DEADLINE AT ALL. Hawaii does not require you to acknowledge a claim within a set period, and subparagraph (B) affirmatively rejects a bare acknowledgment as a sufficient response. A course that teaches "Hawaii: acknowledge within fifteen days" is wrong twice — wrong about the duty and wrong about what discharges it.

The rest of the list an adjuster meets daily. Misrepresenting facts or policy provisions, subparagraph (A). "Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information," (D). "Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear," (H). "Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered," (I). "Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which the payments are being made," (L). Requiring a preliminary claim report and then a formal proof of loss containing substantially the same information, (N). "Failing to promptly settle claims, where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage to influence settlements under other portions," (O). "Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement," (P).

And subparagraph (Q), which governs how you word a draft: it is an unfair practice to be "indicating to the insured on any payment draft, check, or in any accompanying letter that the payment is 'final' or is 'a release' of any claim if additional benefits relating to the claim are probable under coverages afforded by the policy; unless the policy limit has been paid or there is a bona fide dispute over either the coverage or the amount payable."

No Private Action on the Statute — an Independent Tort Instead

Hawaii's two central bad-faith holdings arrived in the same year, from the same court, six months apart.

There is no private right of action under the unfair practices article. Best Place, Inc. v. Penn America Ins. Co., No. 16065, Supreme Court of Hawai'i, decided 5 June 1996 (amended 21 June 1996): "Article 13 of the Hawai'i Insurance Code does not authorize a private cause of action pursuant to its administrative remedies."

And in the same opinion the court supplied the remedy it had just refused. "there is a legal duty, implied in a first- and third-party insurance contract, that the insurer must act in good faith in dealing with its insured, and a breach of that duty of good faith gives rise to an independent tort cause of action."

Note the characterization, because it decides what damages are available: TORT, not contract. That is the opinion's own word — "independent tort cause of action" — and later decisions restate it the same way.

The court's route to that conclusion was a clause in the article itself. It relied on HRS §431:13-202(b): "No order of the Commissioner pursuant to this section or order of court to enforce it shall in any way relieve or absolve any person affected by the order from any other liability, penalty, or forfeiture required by law." The court read that as settling any question of the article's preemptive effect, and observed that "the legislature deemed the existing administrative remedies inadequate" because "the administrative procedures do not afford compensation to the individual damaged by the insurance carrier."

The duty reaches workers' compensation carriers. Hough v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 16019, Supreme Court of Hawai'i, decided 26 November 1996 extended Best Place to the workers' compensation setting, reasoning that "an employee is not merely a potential claimant in relation to his or her employer's workers' compensation insurance contract."

And Hough supplies the sentence every adjuster should be able to quote. "conduct based on an interpretation of the insurance contract that is reasonable does not constitute bad faith." A defensible reading of the policy, applied consistently and documented, is a defense — not a guarantee, but a defense.

One point of genuine tension, stated rather than resolved. Best Place describes the duty as implied in "a first- and third-party insurance contract." Miller v. Hartford Life Insurance Co., No. SCCQ-11-0000329, Supreme Court of Hawai'i, decided 28 December 2011 is reported as confining its own holding to first-party contracts. The natural reading is that Best Place defines the scope of the duty while Miller answers a narrower question about damages — but that reconciliation is not something either court said, and it is not published here as a holding.

On whether a third-party claimant who is a stranger to the policy has a bad-faith action, Hawaii has no decision that settles it. Best Place's duty runs to the insurer's dealings "with its insured," and Hough expressly declined to treat its plaintiff as a mere stranger.

Emotional Distress Without Economic or Physical Loss — Hawaii's Real Outlier

This is the most consequential damages rule in the state, and it is a direct consequence of the tort characterization.

Miller v. Hartford Life Insurance Co., No. SCCQ-11-0000329, Supreme Court of Hawai'i, decided 28 December 2011 answered a certified question: "If a first-party insurer commits bad faith, must an insured prove the insured suffered economic or physical loss caused by the bad faith in order to recover emotional distress damages caused by the bad faith?"

The answer was no.

The court tied the result to the shape of the cause of action: "By characterizing the insured's cause of action as sounding in tort, the courts adopting this reasoning made available to the insured a broader range of compensatory damages and certain additional items of recovery, such as damages for emotional distress and punitive damages, which are generally not available in actions founded solely on breach of contract."

For an adjuster that means the exposure on a mishandled first-party file is not bounded by the dollars in dispute. A claim worth a few thousand dollars can carry an emotional distress award with no economic loss underneath it.

A separate intentional infliction claim is a different and harder thing. In Enoka v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co. the court found that "AIG's conduct does not rise to the level of 'outrageousness'" required for that tort. Bad faith and intentional infliction are not the same claim and do not have the same threshold.

Punitive damages require something beyond the tort itself. Best Place: "punitive damages may not be awarded in a bad faith tort case unless the evidence reflects 'something more' than the conduct necessary to establish the tort."

And the standard of proof is clear and convincing. Best Place applies the standard from Masaki v. General Motors Corp., No. 13023, Supreme Court of Hawaii, decided 20 September 1989: the plaintiff must prove "by clear and convincing evidence that 'the defendant has acted wantonly or oppressively or with such malice as implies a spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations.'" Masaki adds that "a positive element of conscious wrongdoing is always required."

On whether Hawaii caps punitive damages by statute, this guide makes no claim in either direction. No cap was located, but chapter 663 was not enumerated section by section, so the absence is search-based rather than proved.

The Treble-Damages Route Is Closed — on Thinner Authority Than People Assume

Hawaii's general unfair and deceptive practices statute, HRS §480-2, contains no insurance exemption in its own text. Its five subsections declare that "Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful," limit who may sue on the deceptive-practices half, and open the unfair-competition half to "any person." Insurance is not mentioned.

The carve-out is judicial, and the official code carries it as a case note under the section: "Section inapplicable to insurance business. 795 F. Supp. 1036."

That case is Genovia v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., Civ. No. 91-00288, United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, decided 11 June 1992, holding that "An insurance company may not be sued under § 480-2, with respect to conduct performed in the course of its insurance business, as such conduct would be governed by the more specific provisions."

The mechanism is a canon written into the Insurance Code itself. HRS §431:1-104: "Provisions of [the insurance] code relating to a ... particular matter prevail over provisions relating to such matter in general." The court applied it directly — "This specific provision would prevail over the generic 'Unfair Methods of Competition'."

So the treble-damages route under HRS §480-13 is closed to an insured complaining about claim handling. But note what that conclusion rests on: a 1992 federal district court decision and a specific-over-general canon. No Hawaii Supreme Court decision squarely so holds on the record built for this guide. That is thinner authority than the confident way the proposition is usually stated.

What Hawaii gives an insured instead is a one-way fee shift, and it is mandatory. HRS §431:10-242, "Policyholder and other suits against insurer": "Where an insurer has contested its liability under a policy and is ordered by the courts to pay benefits under the policy, the policyholder, the beneficiary under a policy, or the person who has acquired the rights of the policyholder or beneficiary under the policy shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of suit, in addition to the benefits under the policy."

"Shall be awarded." Not "may." For a first-party adjuster this is the most important sentence in the Insurance Code. Contest liability, lose, and the insurer pays the insured's lawyer as well as the claim — with no bad-faith finding required and no frequency element to satisfy.

Regulatory Exposure Is Certain; Civil Exposure Is Unresolved

Split the question, because Hawaii's two answers are not the same.

Regulatory exposure: yes, and it is textual. HRS §431:13-102 runs against "No person" — not against insurers. HRS §431:13-201(a)(2) authorizes "Suspension or revocation of the person's license, if the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person was in violation of section 431:13-103." And HRS §431:9-201 confirms that an adjuster holds exactly such a license. An individual Hawaii adjuster can be fined and can lose the license under the unfair practices article.

The fine tiers, and scienter is the switch. HRS §431:13-201(a)(1): "a fine of not more than $1,000 for each and every act or violation but not to exceed $10,000, unless the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person was in violation of section 431:13-103, in which case the fine shall be not more than $5,000 for each and every act or violation but not to exceed $50,000 in any six-month period."

Note that the higher cap is a rolling window — "$50,000 in any six-month period" — not a per-proceeding ceiling. And the same scienter finding that raises the fine is the one that unlocks license revocation under (a)(2). Knowledge is the single hinge in the section.

Violating a cease and desist order is separately punished. HRS §431:13-202: "A fine of not more than $10,000 for each and every act in violation of the cease and desist order" and "Suspension or revocation of the person's license."

Judicial review is available. HRS §431:13-201(b): "Any person aggrieved by an order of the commissioner under this section may obtain judicial review of the order in the manner provided for by chapter 91."

Civil exposure to the insured: unresolved, and this guide says so rather than guessing. No Hawaii statute, rule or decision was located in either direction on whether an individual adjuster can be sued personally in tort by an insured for bad faith. Best Place and Hough both frame the duty as arising from the insurance contract, which cuts against personal liability for someone who is not a party to it — but neither opinion addresses adjusters or employees at all. That is a negative found by searching, not a negative proved by structure.

Ten Thousand Dollars, Thirty Days, Three Exits

Hawaii is a no-fault state and the machinery is in Article 10C of the Insurance Code.

Minimum limits: 20 / 40 / 10. HRS §431:10C-301(b): "Liability coverage of not less than $20,000 per person, with an aggregate limit of $40,000 per accident, for all damages arising out of accidental harm," and "Liability coverage of not less than $10,000 for all damages arising out of damage to or destruction of property including motor vehicles."

PIP is capped at $10,000, and the cap is per person, not per policy. HRS §431:10C-103 fixes the "Maximum limit" at "$10,000, regardless of the number of motor vehicles or policies involved," and HRS §431:10C-103.5 repeats it: "Personal injury protection benefits shall be subject to an aggregate limit of $10,000 per person for services provided under this section."

What PIP buys — §431:10C-103.5 lists "medical, hospital, surgical, professional, nursing, advanced practice nursing ... dental, optometric, naturopathic medicine, chiropractic, ambulance, prosthetic services, medical equipment and supplies ... x-ray, psychiatric, physical therapy pursuant to prescription by a medical doctor ... occupational therapy, rehabilitation, and therapeutic massage by a licensed massage therapist when prescribed by a medical doctor." Benefits must be "substantially comparable to the requirements for prepaid health care plans."

Who is covered is broader than the vehicle. HRS §431:10C-304 reaches "the owner, operator, occupant, or user of the insured motor vehicle," "Any pedestrian, including a bicyclist," "Any user or operator of a moped," and "Any user or operator of an electric foot scooter."

THE THIRTY-DAY CLOCK, AND THERE ARE EXACTLY THREE WAYS OUT OF IT. HRS §431:10C-304:

Pay. "Payment of personal injury protection benefits shall be made within thirty days after the insurer has received reasonable proof of the fact and amount of benefits accrued."

Deny, in writing, with reasons. "If the insurer elects to deny a claim for benefits in whole or in part, the insurer shall, within thirty days, notify the claimant in writing of the denial and the reasons."

Ask, itemized. "If the insurer cannot pay or deny the claim for benefits because additional information is needed, the insurer shall, within the thirty days, forward to the claimant an itemized" list of what is required.

There is no fourth option and no pending state. Thirty days from reasonable proof, and one of those three things has to have happened.

Missing it costs eighteen percent a year. Unpaid amounts bear interest "at the rate of one and one-half per cent per month."

And it costs the claimant's legal fees. "The insurer shall pay, subject to section 431:10C-211, in addition to the personal injury protection benefits due, all attorney's fees and costs of settlement or suit necessary to effect the payment of any or all personal injury protection benefits found due." The claimant's own recovery is protected from those fees: "No part of personal injury protection benefits paid shall be applied in any manner as attorney's fees."

These are calendar days. The section says "thirty days" with no working-day or business-day qualifier — and the drafters plainly know how to say "working days" when they mean it, because they do exactly that in the unfair practices statute.

Priority of payment is in a different section, and that section has no clocks at all. HRS §431:10C-305 answers who pays, not when: first "The insurance on the vehicle occupied by the injured person at the time of the accident"; then "The insurance on the vehicle which caused accidental harm if the injured person is a pedestrian"; then "If there is no insurance on the vehicle, any other motor vehicle insurance applicable to the injured person." It bars duplication — "No person shall recover personal injury protection benefits from more than one insurer for accidental harm" — and makes workers' compensation primary: "All personal injury protection benefits shall be paid secondarily and net of any benefits a person is entitled to receive because of the accidental harm from workers' compensation laws," with the combined wage-loss recovery capped so that it "shall not exceed eighty per cent of the person's monthly earnings."

A contested comp claim does not let you stall PIP. "If the person does not collect such benefits under the workers' compensation laws by reason of the contest of this right, the injured person shall, nevertheless, be entitled to receive personal injury protection benefits."

Five Thousand Dollars — and the Arithmetic Runs Both Ways

HRS §431:10C-306(a) abolishes tort liability of the "Owner, operator, or user of an insured motor vehicle" — and then subsection (b) reopens it through gateways.

The injury-type gateways. Tort liability survives where "Death occurs to the person in such a motor vehicle accident"; where "Injury occurs to the person which consists, in whole or in part, in a significant permanent loss of use [of a part or function of the body]"; and where "Injury occurs to the person which consists of a permanent and serious disfigurement which results in subjection [to mental or emotional suffering]."

The monetary gateway is a flat $5,000. "Injury occurs to the person in a motor vehicle accident and as a result of such injury that the personal injury protection benefits incurred by such person equal or exceed $5,000."

Now the two arithmetic rules, and getting either backwards opens or closes a tort claim that the statute does not.

COUNT the deductible and copayment. "The applicable amounts of deductible or copayment paid or incurred" go into the $5,000 total. An insured with a $1,000 PIP deductible reaches the threshold $1,000 sooner than the paid-benefits figure suggests.

DO NOT COUNT optional coverage above the basic limit. "When a person has optional coverage, benefits received in excess of the maximum basic personal injury protection limits shall not be included." An insured who bought extra PIP does not reach the threshold faster because of it.

So the number that matters is not "what did we pay?" It is: basic-limit PIP benefits incurred, plus deductible and copayment, minus anything paid above the basic limit under optional coverage.

The figure is fixed, not indexed. The section contains no adjustment mechanism, and its source note ends in 2001.

Some older Hawaii material refers to a "medical-rehabilitative limit" — an indexed threshold from an earlier design of the statute. That phrase does not appear in the current §431:10C-306 or in §431:10C-103. If you meet it in a secondary source, treat it as historical rather than as the current test.

Some conduct never gets the immunity at all. The section preserves liability for "any person in the business of manufacturing, retailing, repairing, servicing, or otherwise maintaining" motor vehicles, and for a person who "Intentionally causes injury or damage to a person or property," "Engages in criminal conduct that causes injury or damage," or "Engages in conduct resulting in punitive or exemplary damages."

The limitation period for anything arising out of a motor vehicle accident is its own rule. HRS §431:10C-315 sets two years running from the later of several triggers: "Two years from the date of the motor vehicle accident upon which the claim is based"; "Two years after the last payment of motor vehicle insurance benefits"; "Two years after the entry of a final order in arbitration"; "Two years after the entry of a final judgment in, or dismissal with prejudice of, a tort action arising out of a motor vehicle accident"; and "Two years after payment of liability coverage, for underinsured motorist claims."

That "last payment" trigger has teeth. In Enoka v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co. the court applied §431:10C-315 to a bad-faith claim and held that subsection (a)(2) "does not condition the last payment ... to be from a defendant insurer." Every benefit payment you make can restart a two-year clock that also governs a bad-faith action against you.

Stacking Is Prohibited by Statute and Restored by a Defective Form

Both coverages are part of the required policy structure. HRS §431:10C-301(b)(3) requires coverage "for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death," and (b)(4) requires "Coverage for loss resulting from bodily injury or death suffered by any person legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of underinsured motor vehicles."

They are included unless validly rejected in writing, and the form requirements are specific. HRS §431:10C-301(d) requires the insurer to "Provide for written rejection of the coverage by requiring the insured to affix the insured's signature in a location adjacent to or directly below the offer."

Stacking is prohibited — and then partially given back. HRS §431:10C-301(c): "The stacking or aggregating of uninsured motorist coverage or underinsured motorist coverage is prohibited, except as provided in subsection (d)."

Subsection (d) requires the insurer to offer two things: "(1) The option to stack uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage; and (2) The option to select uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage, whichever is applicable, up to but not greater than the bodily injury liability coverage limits in the insured's policy."

So the statutory ceiling on UM and UIM is the policy's own bodily injury liability limit. The section states no independent dollar floor.

And here is the trap, which lives in case law rather than in the statute. MacAbio v. TIG Insurance Co., No. 19659, Supreme Court of Hawaii, decided 21 May 1998 held an insurer's offer "legally insufficient insofar as it failed the third and fourth prongs" of the applicable test, and that "the legislature intended that rejection of stacked coverage must be in writing." The insurer's summary judgment was reversed.

The consequence for a file is direct: a defective, unsigned or improperly positioned stacking-rejection form results in STACKED benefits, notwithstanding §431:10C-301(c)'s flat prohibition. The statute says stacking is prohibited. The paperwork decides whether that is true on your claim.

What this guide does not state, because no Hawaii authority for it was located: set-off rules between UM/UIM and other recoveries, and any consent-to-settle or notice-to-insurer duty. Those are governed by the policy form and by decisions not retrieved here.

A Hard Five-Hundred-Dollar Cap on Betterment, and the Insurer Warrants the Part

HRS §431:10C-313 and §431:10C-313.6 govern the day-to-day of a Hawaii automobile physical damage claim, and several of their rules are unusually concrete.

Loss of use. "In motor vehicle property damage liability claims in which liability is reasonably clear, the insurer shall pay for the reasonable and necessary costs, in direct proportion to the extent of its liability, incurred in the rental of another motor vehicle as long as the loss of use claim is submitted and substantiated."

Storage. "The insurer shall provide reasonable notice to an insured prior to termination of payment for motor vehicle storage," and "Sufficient notice to the insured to allow the insured to remove the vehicle from storage prior to the termination of payment shall constitute reasonable notice."

Towing, and the insured's choice is protected. "The insurer shall pay any and all reasonable towing charges, irrespective of the towing company used by the insured unless the insurer has provided the insured with the name of a specific towing company prior to the insured's use." Steer before the tow or pay for the tow the insured chose.

BETTERMENT IS CAPPED AT $500, AND THE CAP IS ABSOLUTE. Deductions are allowed "only if the deductions reflect a measurable decrease in market value attributable to the poorer condition of, or prior damage to, the insured vehicle," and, for "prior wear and tear, missing parts and rust damage that is reflective of the general overall condition of the vehicle considering its age; provided that any deductions for this type of damage shall not exceed $500."

And the file has to show your work. Betterment must be "measurable, itemized, specified as to dollar amount, and documented in the insurer's claim file." An unitemized lump-sum betterment deduction does not comply even if the amount is under the cap.

Two more flat prohibitions in the same section. "An insurer shall make no advance charge deductions for storage and towing charges unless excessive charges have resulted from the insured's own actions." And: "No insurer shall require the insured or claimant to supply parts for replacement."

Parts: the insured chooses, and pays the difference. HRS §431:10C-313.6 requires that an insurer "make available a choice to the insured of authorizing a repair provider to utilize a like kind and quality part of an equal or better quality than the original equipment manufacturer part if such part is available or an original equipment manufacturer part." And: "If the insured or claimant chooses the use of an original equipment manufacturer part, the insured or claimant shall pay the additional cost of the original equipment manufacturer part that is in excess of the equivalent like kind and quality part."

THE INSURER — NOT THE SUPPLIER — GUARANTEES THE PART. A like kind and quality part "shall carry a guarantee in writing for the quality of the like kind and quality part for not less than ninety days or for the same guarantee period as the original equipment manufacturer part, whichever is longer," and "The guarantee shall be provided by the insurer."

Two things Hawaii does not have, stated as absences rather than as permissions. No express repair-shop-choice or anti-steering provision was located — Hawaii protects the choice of towing company expressly and says nothing about the body shop. And no Hawaii statute, rule or decision on diminished value was located, so this guide takes no position on whether it is recoverable.

There Is No Percentage — Your Own Decision Is the Trigger

Hawaii's salvage branding provision is HRS §286-48, and it does not contain a percentage of value anywhere.

The trigger is transactional. Branding attaches "Whenever a motor vehicle subject to registration under this part is sold as salvage or conveyed to an insurance company in the ordinary course of business or as the result of a total loss insurance settlement where the insurance company receives the certificates."

Read that against the way most states write the rule. Many set a threshold — damage exceeding some percentage of actual cash value — so that the vehicle's condition decides the branding. Hawaii makes the carrier's own decision the trigger. If you pay a total loss and take title, the vehicle is salvage. If you do not, no percentage rescues or condemns it.

And there is a ten-day filing duty that falls on the insurer. "the purchaser or, if an insurance company its authorized agent, shall within ten days from the purchase, or the settlement of the insurance loss, forward the motor vehicle's endorsed certificate of ownership or other evidence of title, certificate of registration, license plates, and an application for a salvage" certificate.

Figures in the region of 75 or 80 percent circulate as "the Hawaii total loss threshold." HRS §286-48 was read end to end and there is no percentage in it. Nor does the motor vehicle administrative rule supply one; its subchapters cover required and optional coverage, rejection and cancellation, insurer licensing, self-insurance, statistical reporting, the joint underwriting plan, the fee schedule and peer review, and none of them addresses total loss valuation.

Nothing in Hawaii law sets a valuation methodology, a comparable-vehicle radius, or a rule about taxes and fees on a total loss settlement. Those are contract and market questions here, not statutory ones.

A 1943 Form Adopted by Reference, a One-Year Floor, and a Volcano Clause

Hawaii prescribes a standard fire policy and then does something unusual: it does not print one.

HRS §431:10-210(a): "The standard form fire insurance policy as authorized and in effect in the State of New York on December 31, 1943, or its approved equivalent, is established as the standard form fire insurance policy for this State, and no fire insurance policy shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this State in any other than the standard form or its approved equivalent."

The text lives in the Commissioner's filing cabinet, not in the statute. HRS §431:10-210(b): "The commissioner shall at all times keep on file in the commissioner's office a copy of the standard form fire insurance policy certified by the superintendent of insurance of the State of New York, and copies of all forms deemed to be equivalent."

Nothing may be dropped from it, and it beats the rest of the code. §431:10-210(d): "No part of the standard form fire insurance policy or its approved equivalent shall be omitted from the policy." §431:10-210(h): "In the event of any conflict between this section and other provisions of this code, this section shall govern."

Multi-peril policies get relief. §431:10-210(e): a policy that covers other perils in addition to fire and lightning "need not comply with all of the provisions of the standard form fire insurance policy or its approved equivalent if the policy provisions with respect to the perils of fire and lightning are the exact provisions of the standard form."

And Hawaii permits a modification no other state's fire policy needs. §431:10-210(f)(7): "An insurer may affix to or include in the policy a written statement that the policy does not cover loss or damage by fire to sugarcane caused by volcanic activity."

On the suit-limitation period, there is an independent statutory floor and it is one year. HRS §431:10-221 voids a provision "Limiting right of action against the insurer to a period of less than one year from the time when the cause of action accrues," and, for property and marine or transportation policies, to less than "one year from the date of the loss." A clause that violates it "shall be void, but such voiding shall not affect the validity of the other provisions of the contract." Note the two different triggers — accrual generally, date of loss for property.

Hawaii has no valued policy law, and the negative is proved by enumeration. Article 10E — the property insurance article — consists in its entirety of eleven sections in four parts: Part I, Insurable Interest in Property and Over-Insurance (§§431:10E-101, -102, -103); Part II, Homeowners Insurance Claims History (§§431:10E-121, -122, -123, -124); Part III, Lava Zones (§§431:10E-141, -142); Part IV, Coverages (§§431:10E-151, -152). There is no valued policy section among them.

In fact Hawaii is the structural opposite of a valued-policy state: it prohibits over-insurance. HRS §431:10E-102: "Over-insurance shall be deemed to exist if property or an insurable interest in the property is insured by one or more insurance contracts against the same hazard in any amount in excess of the actual cash value of the property," and "No person shall knowingly sell, solicit, negotiate, or make any contract for insurance which would result in over-insurance."

That section also carries Hawaii's only statutory definition of actual cash value — and confines it. "For the purposes of this section only, the term actual cash value means the cost of replacement less such depreciation as is properly applicable to the subject insured." Those five opening words matter. The definition is written for the over-insurance rule and does not travel into claim settlement.

Three absences, stated honestly. There is no matching statute, rule or case in Hawaii — the enumeration of Article 10E above establishes it structurally. There is no Hawaii authority on labor depreciation in actual cash value in either direction. And there is no appraisal statute and no claim-settlement regulation, which follows from the same enumeration of the Insurance Division's administrative rules that establishes there is no claims rule at all.

The Exposures That Exist Nowhere Else — and the Statutes Written After Lahaina

Lava zones are a statutory insurance regime, and Hawaii is the only state that has one. HRS §431:10E-141 defines "lava zone" and HRS §431:10E-142 governs property in lava zones in the County of Hawaii.

The core rule is a five percent annual nonrenewal cap, triggered by a mayoral proclamation. "Where the mayor of the county of Hawaii has issued a proclamation declaring the existence of a state of emergency due to the threat of imminent disaster from a lava flow," the number of lava-zone property policies an insurer may nonrenew "shall be limited for each calendar year to five per cent" (rounded to the nearest whole number) of its lava-zone book.

Two exceptions. The cap does not protect a policy where "Premium payments for the policy are not made after reasonable demand therefor," or where "the commissioner determines the financial soundness of the insurer would be impaired."

And there is a residual-market backstop. HRS §431:21-119: if residential property insurance is unavailable "due to a moratorium on the issuance of policies on property situated in lava zones," the Hawaii Property Insurance Association "shall remove its moratorium," and then "shall offer new policies and may provide a waiting period of no longer than six months for the policy coverage to take effect" — provided the property does not already have insurance.

Hurricane deductibles are contractual, not statutory. No Hawaii statute sets or caps a hurricane deductible on a private policy. The one hurricane-specific provision is a solvency test: HRS §431:3-306.5 lets the Commissioner require an insurer writing residential hurricane coverage to demonstrate, within thirty days, "that the insurer has the financial assets and ability to cover its hurricane insurance exposure," measured against "a hurricane of a severity unlikely to occur more frequently than once every one hundred years."

The Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund is reactivated and writing today. Its statutory home is chapter 431P, and the Insurance Division describes the live program: hurricane-only excess commercial property coverage for condominium and townhouse associations, a maximum limit of $140 million, attaching above a required $10 million primary hurricane master policy, with a fixed two percent per-building deductible. Eligibility requires that the association have been "previously denied hurricane coverage by at least two state licensed insurance companies" and have total insured value above $10 million.

2025 Act 296 is what reactivated it, and it moved the numbers out of the statute. The act added condominium definitions, expanded eligible property to condominiums, removed the hard-coded coverage caps and fixed deductibles from the statute and directed instead that they "shall be established in the plan of operation, subject to approval by the commissioner." So a coverage limit cited to chapter 431P itself is now citing the wrong instrument — the figures live in an approved plan of operation. The act also added assessment authority, authority to lend funds to the Hawaii Property Insurance Association, condominium inspection requirements, a premium surcharge recoupment mechanism capped at two percent per policy, and a temporary recording fee of up to $44 per recorded document for up to thirty-six months in place of the repealed special mortgage recording fee. The Division's own release adds that the act "establishes the Condominium Loan Program to help buildings remain insurable."

And 2026 Act 256 writes the Maui wildfires into the property article, effective 1 January 2027. The act's findings say so directly: "the 2023 Maui wildfires revealed that many homeowners were severely underinsured, leaving many affected residents unable to rebuild and forcing them into debt or permanent displacement." It adds four new sections to Article 10E: definitions; a biennial written notice by producers that policyholders may submit property-improvement information; an insurer duty to reevaluate replacement cost and offer additional coverage, with the offer stating the premium, remaining open thirty days and renewing annually; and an administrative penalty of $250 per violation.

Condominiums are the daily reality of Hawaii property adjusting. HRS §514B-143 requires the association to carry property insurance on the common elements, commercial general liability of "a minimum amount of $1,000,000," a fidelity bond, and directors and officers liability coverage — with the property insurance written "In a total amount of not less than the full insurable replacement cost of the insured property, less deductibles, but including coverage for the increased costs of construction."

Cancellation and nonrenewal notice changed on 1 January 2026 and changes again on 1 January 2027. Under HRS §431:10-226.5 as amended by 2025 Act 110, residential property gets twenty days for cancellation on ordinary grounds — "This subsection shall only apply to policies of insurance on property used for residential purposes" — but only ten days "due to nonpayment of premium or material misrepresentation." Nonrenewal remains thirty days, and other lines remain at ten and thirty. Two rules survive both versions: "If under title 24 or a policy, a longer time period is required for a notice of cancellation or nonrenewal for the policy, the longer period shall be applicable," and "Cancellation or nonrenewal shall not be deemed valid unless evidence of mailing is provided." 2026 Act 040 §5 amends the section again with effect from 1 January 2027.

Two duties on the carrier side worth knowing. HRS §431:10E-151: "Thirteen months prior to discontinuation of writing property insurance coverage, an insurer shall file an affidavit with the commissioner stating the reasons for the discontinuation." And HRS §431:10E-152: insurers seeking to provide multi-peril residential coverage "shall submit to the commissioner a written request for permission" — and "If the request is disapproved, the insurer shall not write the coverage."

Three Hundred Thousand a Claim, Workers' Compensation in Full, No Claimant Deductible

Part I of Article 16 is the property and casualty guaranty association. Its structure runs §431:16-101 (title), -102 (purpose), -103 (scope, and the lines it excludes), -104 (construction), -105 (definitions, including "covered claim"), -107 (board of directors) and -108 (powers and duties, where the caps live).

"Covered claim" has a hard date in it. HRS §431:16-105 defines it as "an unpaid claim, including one for unearned premiums, submitted by a claimant, that arises out of and is within the coverage and is subject to the applicable limits of an insurance policy to which this part applies issued by an insurer, if the insurer becomes an insolvent insurer after July 1, 2000."

THE CAPS, from HRS §431:16-108(a)(1):

Workers' compensation — no cap. "(A) The full amount of a covered claim for benefits under a workers' compensation insurance coverage."

Unearned premium — $10,000, and it is per POLICY. "(B) An amount not exceeding $10,000 per policy for a covered claim for the return of unearned premium."

Everything else — $300,000, and it is per CLAIM. "(C) An amount not exceeding $300,000 per claim for all other covered claims."

Note the unit changes between (B) and (C) — per policy for unearned premium, per claim for everything else. That distinction is a favourite of examination writers.

The policy limit is an independent ceiling. "In no event shall the association be obligated to a policyholder or claimant in an amount in excess of the stated policy limit of the insolvent insurer under the policy from which the claim arises."

The trigger window is thirty days around the liquidation order. The association is obligated "to the extent of the covered claims existing prior to the order of liquidation and arising within thirty days after the order of liquidation, or before the policy expiration date if less than thirty days after the order of liquidation, or before the insured replaces the policy or causes its cancellation, if the insured does so within thirty days of the order of liquidation."

And there is a hard bar date. "a covered claim shall not include a claim filed with the association after the final date set by the court for the filing of claims against the liquidator or receiver of an insolvent insurer."

The duty to defend ends when the money is tendered. "Any obligation of the association to defend an insured shall cease upon the association's payment or tender of an amount equal to the lesser of the association's covered claim obligation limit or the applicable policy limit."

The association steps into the insurer's shoes, and keeps the recoveries. It is "deemed the insurer, but only to the extent of its obligation on covered claims," with "all rights, duties, and obligations of the insolvent insurer as if the insurer had not become insolvent, including but not limited to the right to pursue and retain salvage and subrogation."

What is excluded from a covered claim. Punitive or exemplary damages; retrospective-rating premium returns; amounts due a reinsurer or insurer as subrogation or otherwise; first-party claims by an insured whose net worth exceeded $25,000,000 on 31 December of the year before the insolvency; claims by affiliates of the insolvent insurer; pre-insolvency attorney and provider fees; attorney and provider fees on claims against the association; interest; and incurred-but-not-reported losses.

There is no claimant-side deductible in Hawaii. Many states subtract a fixed sum from every covered claim. HRS §431:16-108(a)(1) and the "covered claim" definition were both read and neither contains one.

The caps have not moved. §431:16-108's source note ends at a 2012 amendment, and Hawaii did not join the recent wave of states raising guaranty limits.

Sixty Days to the Branch, and Immunity Unless You Acted With Malice

Insurance fraud is Part IV of Article 2, and it runs §§431:2-401 through 431:2-410: definitions; the insurance fraud investigations branch; insurance fraud; restitution; administrative penalties; administrative procedures; acceptance of payment; the civil cause of action and exemption; mandatory reporting; and deposit into the compliance resolution fund.

THE REPORTING DUTY IS SIXTY DAYS, AND IT RUNS FROM DISCOVERY BY AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT. HRS §431:2-409: "Within sixty days of an insurer or other licensee's employee or agent discovering credible information indicating a violation of section 431:2-403, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the insurer or licensee shall provide to the branch information, including documents and other evidence, regarding the alleged violation." The section adds that "The insurance fraud investigations branch shall work with the insurer or licensee to determine what information shall be provided."

Note whose knowledge starts the clock. It is not the company's institutional knowledge — it is discovery by "an employee or agent." If you are the adjuster who spots it, the sixty days begins with you.

What you report is shielded. "Information provided pursuant to this section shall be protected from public disclosure to the extent authorized by chapter 92F and section 431:2-209," and may be released to law enforcement and regulators, to "the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, or an insurer or other licensee aggrieved by the alleged violation."

Immunity is conditional, and the condition is absence of malice. HRS §431:2-408 provides that persons and insurers "shall not be subject to civil liability for providing information" to courts, the Commissioner or law enforcement, where they are "acting without actual malice" and the information is provided "for the purpose of preventing, investigating, or prosecuting insurance fraud." The protection does not apply "if the person commits perjury."

The same section gives the carrier an affirmative civil action. An insurer or licensee may sue a violator of §431:2-403 to recover what it paid, barred if the person has already made restitution. The action must be "filed within six years after the insurance fraud is discovered," and in no event "more than ten years after the date on which a violation of this part is committed."

The criminal grades are set by dollar value. HRS §431:2-403 makes fraud a class B felony where "the value of the benefits, recovery, or compensation obtained or attempted to be obtained exceeds $20,000"; a class C felony where it "exceeds $750"; and a misdemeanor where it "is not in excess of $750." The conduct elements are intentionally or knowingly misrepresenting or concealing material facts, aiding such conduct, or knowingly presenting false statements or claims.

Administrative penalties run alongside or instead of the criminal ones. HRS §431:2-405 authorizes the Commissioner, "In addition to or in lieu of criminal penalties under section 431:2-403(b)," to order restitution, "A fine of not more than $10,000 for each violation," and "Reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs of the party sustaining a loss under this part; provided that the State shall be exempt from paying attorneys' fees and costs to other parties." The same six-year and ten-year limits apply.

And a hearing comes first. HRS §431:2-406(b): "The commissioner shall hold a hearing in accordance with chapter 91, prior to imposing any administrative remedy."

HAWAII DOES NOT REQUIRE A FRAUD WARNING STATEMENT ON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CLAIM FORMS. All ten sections of Part IV are enumerated above and none imposes one. The only section that touches forms and billing is HRS §431:2-407, and it says something else entirely: "A provider's failure to dispute a reduced payment by an insurer shall not constitute an implied admission that a fraudulent billing was submitted." Warning-statement requirements do exist in Hawaii — in specialty chapters governing life settlements — but none of them reaches a property or casualty claim form.

Four Presumptions, a Ten-Day First Payment, and a Bad-Faith Action Against the Carrier

Hawaii's workers' compensation law is chapter 386, administered by the Disability Compensation Division of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.

THE 2026 RATES, and the date printed inside the document is 10 December 2025, so it is current rather than stale. From the Division's 2026 Maximum Weekly Wage Base and Maximum Weekly Benefit Amount: the state average annual wage is $64,471.82 and the state average weekly wage is $1,239.84. The workers' compensation maximum weekly benefit for calendar year 2026 is $1,240.00, and the maximum weekly wage base is $1,859.91.

That maximum is one hundred percent of the state average weekly wage, which is an unusually low multiple. HRS §386-31(a) sets the ceiling at "not more than the state average weekly wage last determined by the director, rounded to the nearest dollar" — hence $1,239.84 becoming $1,240.

The floor is computed, not published. §386-31(a) sets the minimum at "nor less than $38 or twenty-five per cent of the foregoing maximum amount, rounded to the nearest dollar, whichever is higher," which for 2026 gives $310. The Division's notice states the maximum and does not print the minimum, so the $310 is arithmetic from the statute rather than a published figure — and is presented that way here.

The rate and the waiting period. HRS §386-31(b) pays total disability "at the rate of sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the employee's average weekly wages," or at one hundred percent of average weekly wages where those wages fall below the minimum rate, "for the duration of the disability, but not including the first three calendar days thereof."

THE PAYMENT CLOCK, AND THE DENIAL VEHICLE. §386-31(b): "The employer shall pay temporary total disability benefits promptly as they accrue to the person entitled thereto without waiting for a decision from the director, unless this right is controverted by the employer in the employer's initial report of industrial injury." And: "The first payment of benefits shall become due and shall be paid no later than on the tenth day after the employer has been notified of the occurrence of the total disability, and thereafter the benefits due shall be paid weekly."

Read the denial mechanism carefully, because it is not a letter. You controvert in the initial report of industrial injury — the report that HRS §386-95 requires "within seven working days after the employer has knowledge of such injury causing absence from work for one day or more." Miss that filing and you have not merely been late; you have lost the vehicle for contesting the claim.

Other §386-95 deadlines. "When an injury results in immediate death, the employer shall within forty-eight hours notify personally or by telephone." "Within thirty days after final payment of compensation for an injury, the employer shall file a final report." And an annual report is due "By January 31 of each year."

Terminating benefits requires two weeks' written notice to the employee AND the director. §386-31(b): payments "shall only be terminated upon order of the director or if the employee is able to resume work," and "the employer shall notify the employee and the director in writing of an intent to terminate the benefits at least two weeks prior to the date when the last payment is to be made."

And light duty does not end benefits by itself. "If the employee is unable to perform light work, if offered, temporary total disability benefits shall not be discontinued based solely on the inability to perform or continue to perform light work."

A director's preliminary decision binds you in twenty days if you do not move. A party "may request a hearing within twenty days of the date of the decision," and "If neither party requests a hearing challenging the director's finding the determination shall be deemed accepted and binding upon the parties."

THE PRESUMPTION IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN HAWAII COMP, AND IT PRESUMES COMPENSABILITY ITSELF. HRS §386-85: "In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary: (1) That the claim is for a covered work injury; (2) That sufficient notice of such injury has been given; (3) That the injury was not caused by the intoxication of the injured employee; and (4) That the injury was not caused by the wilful intention of the injured employee to injure oneself or another."

Most states presume notice, or presume nothing. Hawaii presumes the claim is compensable, and the only way out is substantial evidence.

Employee notice has no number. HRS §386-81: no proceeding may be maintained "unless written notice of the injury has been given to the employer as soon as practicable," and three waivers follow — employer or agent knowledge; medical care furnished by the employer; or "For some satisfactory reason the notice could not be given and the employer has not been prejudiced by such failure."

The claim limitation is two years and five years, together. HRS §386-82: a written claim must be made to the Director "Within two years after the date at which the effects of the injury for which the employee is entitled to compensation have become manifest" and "Within five years after the date of the accident or occurrence which caused the injury." Listed carcinogen and radiation exposures are excepted and run instead from knowledge of causation.

Late payment carries two separate penalties. §386-31(b): an employer or carrier who fails to comply "shall pay not more than $5,000 into the special compensation fund upon the order of the director, in addition to other penalties prescribed in section 386-92." And HRS §386-92 adds a twenty percent default penalty, triggered by nonpayment of a final decision within thirty-one days, or by nonpayment of temporary total disability benefits "within ten days, exclusive of Saturdays" and holidays, after notice.

AND THE COMP CARRIER CAN BE SUED FOR BAD FAITH. Hough v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 16019, Supreme Court of Hawai'i, decided 26 November 1996 extended the Best Place tort into the workers' compensation setting, holding that "an employee is not merely a potential claimant in relation to his or her employer's workers' compensation insurance contract." Exclusivity does not swallow it.

Two neighboring programs exist in Hawaii and almost nowhere else, and an adjuster meets both. Temporary Disability Insurance under chapter 392 — the 2026 notice sets the TDI maximum weekly wage base at $1,500.21 and the maximum weekly benefit at $871.00, with the employee contribution capped at "one-half the premium cost but not more than .5% of the employee's weekly wage, with the maximum not to exceed $7.50." And the Prepaid Health Care Act under chapter 393, mandatory for employees working twenty or more hours weekly earning at least $1,387.00 monthly — the same standard that HRS §431:10C-103.5 uses as the benchmark for PIP benefit design.

What Moves, Where to Look, and Two Dates in 2027

Hawaii's legislature meets every year, in a regular session that opens in January and adjourns in early May, with acts signed through mid-July. So a Hawaii guide has a shelf life of about twelve months, and 2026 has already put two changes on a fuse.

The two dates to diary, both 1 January 2027. 2026 Act 040 replaces HRS §431:9-235 whole and amends §431:9-238 — the discipline and fine sections for adjusters and bill reviewers — and also amends the cancellation and nonrenewal notice section. 2026 Act 256 adds four new sections to the property article requiring insurers to reevaluate replacement cost and offer additional coverage, with a $250-per-violation penalty. Neither is in force today and both will be by the start of 2027.

Where to check, in order. The official Hawaii Revised Statutes at the legislature's own site carry each section's source note at its foot, which is the only currency signal Hawaii publishes — the section pages themselves print no revision date. The Legislative Reference Bureau's session reports carry the artifact that settles questions rather than merely suggesting answers: within each year's Supplemental Information document is a table headed "Sections of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Affected," listing every section touched by every act of the session with the effect (amended, new, repealed) and the bill or act number. That table converts "I could not find an amendment" into "there was none."

Two cautions about that table, both learned the hard way. First, a row may carry a bill number with no act number, because the table is printed before act numbers are fully assigned — so every row must be chased to that session's list of enacted bills and its list of vetoes. A 2025 bill amending the core no-fault sections appears in the table and was vetoed. Second, a row may point at a section the enrolled act never quotes, because the act amends it through a global phrase-substitution clause; searching the bill for the section's subject matter finds nothing and the row looks wrong. It is not. Search the act for the bare section number.

Free code reproductions are a year behind, and their stamps vary section by section. Commercial reproductions of the Hawaii Revised Statutes carry an edition year, and the current one predates the 2026 session entirely — so none of Act 040, Act 256 or the 2026 motor vehicle terminology change appears in them. Read the stamp printed on the individual page you are relying on, not the site's general claim.

Figures that reset on a schedule. The workers' compensation maximum and minimum weekly benefits, the state average weekly wage, and the temporary disability insurance figures are reset each calendar year by the Disability Compensation Division; the current notice is dated 10 December 2025 and governs 2026. Read the date printed inside the document rather than the filename or the URL.

Things worth watching specifically. Whether the Hurricane Relief Fund's plan of operation changes the coverage limit or the deductible, since those figures left the statute in 2025. Whether the Insurance Division ever adopts a claims-handling regulation, which would displace the statute-only structure this guide describes. And whether any court resolves the two questions Hawaii has left genuinely open: whether the salaried staff of an independent adjusting firm fall inside the exclusion in HRS §431:9-105, and whether an individual adjuster can be sued personally by an insured.

Quick Reference

Official Links