Vermont · Insurance Adjuster Sample Interactive Mind Map

Vermont Adjuster Regulations

A visual breakdown of the Vermont rules an adjuster is tested on — including the deadlines that are not in the deadline statute, the multiplier that is not in the disability statute, and the one number Vermont has never published.

Vermont’s distinguishing habit is that it puts its answers where you are not looking. Its claim-handling deadlines are not in the unfair claims statute — that statute contains no numbers at all. Its stacking rule is not in the uninsured motorist statute, which never uses the word. Its permanent partial disability multiplier is not the number printed in its own workers’ compensation statute. Its guaranty fund is not a chapter. And its matching requirement, which most fifty-state charts will tell you does not exist, sits in a regulation.

Vermont also splits one credential into five. There is no single adjuster license here with lines of authority bolted on: the state issues separate P&C adjuster, workers’ compensation adjuster, public adjuster, motor vehicle damage appraiser and crop adjuster licenses, at two different fee levels, across three examinations — and the public adjuster pays $200 to sit the same exam the P&C adjuster sits for $120.

Then there is the number that is not there. Vermont publishes no passing score. The statute says only “a grade determined by the Commissioner”; none of the Department’s insurance regulations sets one; none of the three Prometric content outlines states one; and the current candidate bulletin’s own Exam Results section explains no scoring methodology whatsoever. The “70%” every exam-prep site quotes has no source behind it — and because the score is undisclosed, whether Vermont reports a raw percentage or a scaled score cannot be answered either.

This map walks the five licenses and the catastrophe exemption that needs no declaration but does need an admitted insurer; the business-day clocks and their two different triggers; the thirteen prohibited acts that are not the national sixteen; the rule that an adjuster cannot be sued by the insured but can be fined by the Commissioner; and the automobile chapter where UM/UIM cannot be rejected, its minimums are double the liability minimums, and comparative fault is measured against the defendants combined. Ten scenario questions at the end, each built on a place Vermont departs from the rule you were taught.

Vermont does not issue “an adjuster license with lines of authority.” It issues five separate licenses.
Two fee levels, three examinations, a qualification most states repealed — and a catastrophe rule that needs no declaration but does need an admitted insurer.

Credential	Acts for	Exam & fee
P&C Adjuster	the insurer — § 4791	Prometric 14-33 · $30 + $120
Public Adjuster	the insured — same sentence, four words changed	THE SAME 14-33 exam · $30 + $200
Workers’ Comp Adjuster	the insurer, on comp claims	Prometric 14-34 · $30 + $120 · THE ONLY ONE WITH CE
Motor Vehicle Damage Appraiser	“for compensation … under policies of automobile* insurance”*	Prometric 14-37 · $30 + $120
Crop Adjuster	§ 4803(f) — no Vermont examination exists. A “proficiency examination approved by the federal Risk Management Agency” instead. $30 + $120.

The public adjuster pays $80 more and sits the identical exam§ 4800(2)(A)(v) sets the license fee for “adjusters, and appraisers licenses, $120.00, and public adjusters, $200.00.” But there is no separate Vermont public adjuster examination — the Series 14-33 Adjuster’s Property and Casualty exam qualifies both credentials. Same test, different price. The fee schedule was amended effective January 1, 2025, so figures older than that are stale.

🧾

The supervision route has a hidden qualifier — and it is on the SUPERVISOR

§ 4803(a)(4) gives three qualification routes: two years’ experience, special training, or supervised employment. Everyone quotes the three. Almost nobody quotes the rest of the sentence: employment “subject to the immediate personal supervision of a licensed adjuster … who has been so established in business for not less than THREE YEARS preceding the date of application for the license.” A colleague licensed last year cannot qualify you. And note the experience must be in the relevant thing — loss claims for an adjuster, workers’ compensation claims for a comp adjuster, insurance loss appraising for an appraiser.

✅ The catastrophe exemption — § 4803(d)(2)

No license required for one “sent into this State … for the investigation or adjustment of a particularly unusual or extraordinary loss, or of a series of losses resulting from a catastrophe common to all such losses.”

NO declaration is required. No governor, no commissioner, no declared disaster. The trigger is factual.

No registration, no permit, no fee, no form, no notice. It is a flat exemption.

The same sentence also exempts a marine-average adjuster.

⚠ But two gates most people drop

You must be sent in “on behalf of a DULY ADMITTED INSURER.” An adjuster who self-deploys after an ice storm is outside it. So is one working a surplus lines book.

The subsection heading mentions workers’ compensation adjusters. The operative sentence does not — it lists only adjuster, public adjuster, appraiser.

Material saying this applies “during officially declared catastrophe events” adds a condition that is not there and drops the one that is.

📑

Five Negatives, Proved by Enumerating the Chapter

Sections 4791 through 4826 were read in full. These absences are findings, not gaps.

No public adjuster bond. No cap on public adjuster compensation. No required contract and no rescission period. Nowhere in § 4803, nowhere in chapter 131, and nothing on the Department’s public adjuster page. Vermont is a genuine outlier — most states regulate all three. Do not carry another state’s public adjuster contract rules across the border.
No prelicensing education for any of the five credentials. No hours, no approved providers, no certificate.
No fingerprinting and no criminal background check. And this one is interesting: § 4800(4)(E)(iii) expressly authorizes it — the Commissioner may require fingerprints and charge the applicant. That authority has never been exercised. No regulation imposes it, no licensing page mentions it, and there is no fee to quote.
No appointment. § 4813l binds “An insurance producer or limited lines producer” — adjusters are not named.
No business entity or agency adjuster license. Every business-entity form the Department issues is a producer form.

Records: three years, and it is YOUR statute — do not borrow the insurer’s§ 4803(c) requires each adjuster to keep “at the address shown on the license” a record of all transactions, including “a copy of all investigations, adjustments, or appraisals” and “a statement of any fee, commission, or other compensation received or to be received” — available to the Commissioner “at all times” and retained at least three years. Vermont’s Regulation 99-1 sets five years for policy records and two for claims records, but its scope is “each insurer or related entity”. Right rule, wrong citation is the error here. Your number is three.

🚨

Claiming residency elsewhere VOIDS a Vermont resident license — § 4800(3)(A)

A resident application “shall constitute an election of residency … and shall be VOID if the licensee, while holding a resident license in this State, also holds or makes application for a license in, or thereafter claims to be a resident of any other state or other jurisdiction.” Not suspended. Not revocable after a hearing. Void — and the trigger includes merely applying elsewhere. Nonresidents qualify under § 4800(3)(B)(i) “only if the applicant holds a like license in the United States or a province of Canada” — a wider gateway than most, which is what you would expect of a border state.

Every exam-prep site in the country will tell you Vermont’s passing score is 70%. No Vermont instrument says so.
Four sources were checked and all four are silent. Meanwhile the renewal convention can cost you a whole license fee, and the CE rule lands on exactly one credential.

Series	Examination	Scored · pretest · time · fee
14-33	Adjuster’s Property and Casualty (also the public adjuster exam)	150 + 5 · 2 hr 30 min · $87
14-34	Adjuster’s Workers Compensation	50 + 5 · 1 hour · $73
14-37	Motor Vehicle Damage Appraiser	60 + 5 · 1 hour · $73
—	Crop Adjuster	No Vermont exam — federal RMA proficiency certification

🔍

Vermont publishes NO passing score — four instruments checked, all silent

1. The statute. § 4800(3)(D)(vii): the applicant must pass “with a grade determined by the Commissioner to indicate satisfactory knowledge and understanding.” No number. 2. The regulations. All of the Department’s insurance regulations were enumerated — none sets a passing score. 3. The three Prometric content outlines (14-33, 14-34, 14-37) — silent. 4. The current Prometric bulletin. Its “Exam Results” section tells you a notice of completion arrives by email and points at the score-report portal. No passing score, no scaled-score explanation, no methodology.

Because the score is undisclosed, the raw-versus-scaled question is also unanswerable. Several states report a scaled score that looks like a percentage and is not one. Vermont does not tell you which. Do not assume either. Prepare to a comfortable margin rather than to a threshold. No retake waiting period and no attempt cap are published either.

The workers’ compensation exam is one third the size of the property and casualty oneFifty scored questions in sixty minutes, against 150 in 150. Candidates who build a study plan off the 14-33 specification massively over-prepare for 14-34; candidates who assume all Vermont adjuster exams look alike walk into 14-33 having studied for a third of it. Question counts and time limits are NOT in the candidate bulletin — they live in Prometric’s per-exam content outlines, which is exactly where a candidate who reads only the bulletin will fail to look. Registration stays valid 90 calendar days; fees are “not refundable and not transferable.”

📅 Producers renew ODD years

§ 4798(b)(1) — licenses of insurance producers and limited lines producers expire “12:01 a.m. … the first day of April of the odd-numbered year next following date of issuance.”

📅 Adjusters renew EVEN years

§ 4798(b)(2) — “all other license type … shall expire … the first day of April of the even-numbered year following the date of issuance.” Adjusters are not producers, so adjusters are “all other license type.”

💰

The common expiration date is not prorated — and it can cost you $120

The Department operates a common expiration date for all adjuster-family licenses, and states two consequences plainly: it “applies to NEW applicants regardless of the date of issuance” and “the fee charged will NOT be prorated.” A license issued in February of an even-numbered year costs the full $120 and expires about six weeks later. If you are approaching a common expiration date, ask before you file — the difference is a whole license fee.

Two stale documents on the Department’s own site. The Auto Damage Appraiser page states the even-year term and then carries FAQ language saying “odd years” — even is correct, per § 4798(b)(2), the common-expiration notice and the other four license pages. And the fee link on the P&C and workers’ compensation pages resolves to a PDF named for 2019, predating the January 2025 fee amendment. The amounts printed on the pages are current; the linked document is not.

🎓

Continuing Education: None — Except One Credential

And the agency that trains you is not the agency that licenses you

P&C adjusters, public adjusters, crop adjusters and appraisers owe NOTHING. § 4800a imposes 24 hours per two years on “an applicant for an insurance producer license renewal” — and the words “adjuster” and “public adjuster” appear nowhere in the section.
The regulation agrees, and we checked its SCOPE rather than its caption. Regulation I-2000-02 § 1.B: “This regulation applies to producers for any line of insurance…” and § 3.G defines “producer” as an agent or broker. In some states a CE regulation is captioned for agents and brokers while its scope section sweeps adjusters in by name. Here the caption and the scope agree — which is a finding, not an assumption.
Workers’ compensation adjusters are the exception, and it is MANDATORY. § 4803(e): “The Commissioner SHALL require workers’ compensation adjusters to complete educational or training programs in their field. The Commissioner may suspend or revoke a license … of any person who fails to comply.”
One seminar every two years — administered by the VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, not by the Department of Financial Regulation. Two agencies, one obligation. Hold both the P&C and the comp credential, as many Vermont adjusters do, and the P&C side will never ask you for an hour while the comp side can take your license.

Twenty-four months of shelf life on a passing score§ 4800(3)(D)(i): “An applicant must submit an application to the Commissioner within 24 months after the date of examination.” Most states leave this unstated and candidates guess. Vermont puts it in the statute. Miss it and you sit again. Two other housekeeping numbers from the same section: 30 days to notify the Commissioner of an address change (§ 4800(3)(F) — this one DOES bind adjusters, unlike § 4813o’s producer-only reporting duties), and if a license is refused, the license fee is refunded and every other fee is not.

There is not a single number in Vermont’s unfair claim settlement practices statute.
Every deadline is in Regulation I-79-2 — and every one of them is counted in business days, from two different triggers.

⚠

Citing 8 V.S.A. § 4724 for a deadline is citing the wrong instrument

Read what § 4724(9) actually says: acknowledge “reasonably promptly” (B) · standards for “prompt investigation” (C) · a “reasonable investigation” (D) · affirm or deny “within a reasonable time” (E) · “prompt, fair, and equitable settlements” (F). Every clock in the statute is a reasonableness standard. The numbers live in Regulation I-1979-02 (Revised), “Fair Claims Practices,” effective July 1, 2018, CVR 21-020-008, issued under §§ 10, 11, 15 and 4724 and expressly stated to supplement § 4724(9). Its scope: all policies EXCEPT workers’ compensation, title and surety.

Duty	Clock	Runs from
Acknowledge the claim — § 5.A	10 business days	notice of claim
Reply to a claimant communication — § 5.B	10 business days	the communication
Respond to a Department inquiry — § 5.C	15 business days	the inquiry
Affirm or deny coverage — § 6.A	15 business days	properly executed PROOFS OF LOSS
Need more time — first party — § 6.C	15 business days	proofs of loss
Need more time — third party — § 6.C	30 business days	NOTICE OF CLAIM
Status letters thereafter — § 6.C	every 30 business days	prior notification
Warn of approaching limitations — first party — § 6.E	30 business days before	expiry
Warn of approaching limitations — third party — § 6.E	60 business days before	expiry
Pay — § 6.G	10 business days	settlement agreed · to claimant and/or loss payee
Begin the investigation	NO DEADLINE	a systems duty only — § 4724(9)(C)

🚨 Trap 1 — two clocks, two starting guns

The first-party affirm-or-deny clock runs from properly executed proofs of loss.

The third-party extension clock runs from notice of claim.

Same regulation, adjacent subsections. Diarizing both from the same date is the most common way a Vermont file goes late.

⚠ Trap 2 — they are all BUSINESS days

A national course teaching “15 days to affirm or deny” understates Vermont’s clock by about a week of calendar time.

Fifteen business days is three calendar weeks.

And Trap 3: candidates hunt for a begin-investigation deadline because most states have something. Vermont has none.

💸

§ 3665 is REPEALED — and § 3665a’s interest clock runs from a different event than its payment clock

8 V.S.A. § 3665 was repealed by 2019, No. 103 (Adj. Sess.), § 14. Free codifications and search engines still surface it prominently. Citing § 3665 is an error.

The live provision is § 3665a — property, casualty, surety and title, excluding workers’ compensation. Pay within 10 business days of settlement agreed (30 days surety and title); contested claims within 30 days of final nonappealable judgment or binding arbitration. Then the part that costs money: interest at the judgment rate accrues “from 30 days after the date the insurer receives a properly executed proof of loss.”

Payment runs from settlement agreed. Interest runs from proof of loss. Those thirty days can easily expire while coverage is still being investigated in perfect good faith — so interest can already be accruing on a claim you are paying exactly on time. This is the single most expensive misunderstanding in Vermont first-party practice.

Two more fire-loss clocks worth knowing§ 3868 — a fire loss is “due and payable in 60 days after receipt by the insuring company of satisfactory proofs,” and the insured may sue after that. § 3867 — a proof-of-loss forfeiture is curable: the insurer must give written notice before voiding the policy, the insured then has 30 days, and defects must be specified within 10 days with a further 30-day cure. And § 7 of the regulation requires every claim payment to carry “an appropriate explanation of the basis of the payment (example, full explanation of all deductions for depreciations, deductibles or coinsurance).”

The insured cannot sue you. The Commissioner can fine you. Both are true and they point in opposite directions.
Thirteen prohibited acts, not sixteen. A general business practice element the tort does not require. And a chapter that names adjusters as regulated persons.

📑

Thirteen acts, lettered (A) to (M) — and the frequency element is REQUIRED

The chapeau of § 4724(9): “Unfair claim settlement practices. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a business practice any of the following.” A single act is not a statutory violation. Note the wording — the statute says “a business practice” where the NAIC model says “a general business practice”; the regulation puts the word back.

Vermont has THIRTEEN sub-items, not the model’s sixteen. It omits the model’s provisions on standard forms and manuals and on delaying by requesting duplicate third-party submissions. An adjuster taught “the sixteen prohibited acts” is over-counting in Vermont.

Two more subdivisions reach you: § 4724(17) makes failure to instruct or supervise actionable against a principal who knows of a deceptive act by an adjuster; and § 4724(21) is Vermont’s only true statutory anti-steering ban — and it covers AUTO GLASS only.

🚫 The chapter is §§ 4721–4728

Sections 4729 through 4738 were repealed in 1974 — and they held the NAIC model’s procedural machinery. So Vermont’s chapter 129 has no cease-and-desist provision, no hearing procedure and no judicial review provision. If you learned a “notice, hearing, C&D, appeal” sequence, it is not here. § 4721 still points at “sections 4721-4733” — sections that have not existed for fifty-two years. Never cite “§§ 4721–4733.”

📜 Two 2025 acts, both resolved

Act 23 § 4 appended a new subdivision (23), Affordable housing; unfair discrimination. Act 11 § 9 made a single conforming cross-reference edit in § 4724(7)(E), “4062” to “4026,” after Act 11 reorganized chapter 107. Neither renumbered, deleted or substantively changed subdivision (9) or any other subdivision. All 23 subdivision numbers survive, so pre-2025 subdivision cites remain valid — which is not something you can assume of a section amended twice in one session.

🧾

No private right of action — and chapter 129 names ADJUSTERS as regulated persons

No private suit. Messier v. Bushman, 2018 VT 93: “The ITPA provides for administrative sanctions … It does not create a private right of action,” citing Wilder v. Aetna, 140 Vt. 16 (1981). The chapter says so about itself twice — §§ 4727(k) and 4728. A national bad-faith compendium states the opposite about Vermont; it is wrong, and the Supreme Court has said so twice.

But look who IS bound. § 4723: “No person shall engage in any trade practice…” — and § 4722(1) defines “person” to include “agents, brokers, appraisers, and adjusters.” § 4726(b) then authorizes up to $1,000 per violation, or up to $10,000 if the Commissioner finds it willful, against “any person.” Not the carrier — you.

⚖

Bad Faith: Bushey, and the Element the Statute Requires but the Tort Does Not

Vermont is one of few states with controlling authority on adjuster personal liability — in both directions

First-party bad faith — Bushey v. Allstate, 164 Vt. 399 (1995). Two elements: “(1) the insurance company had no reasonable basis to deny benefits … and (2) the company knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that no reasonable basis existed.” Overruling check: intact and reaffirmed in Murphy v. Patriot, 2014 VT 96, which adds the “fairly debatable” safe harbor.
THE INTERACTION IS THE TEACHING POINT. The statute needs a pattern. The tort does not — Bushey is available for a single wrongful denial. Adjusters who reason “one file cannot be a violation” are half right, and it is the dangerous half.
Third-party, owed to the INSURED — recognized, and the standard is HIGHER. Myers v. Ambassador, 146 Vt. 552 (1986): liability for an excess judgment where the insurer “intentionally disregarded” the insured’s financial interests. Intentional, not merely reckless.
Third-party, owed to the CLAIMANT — not recognized. Larocque v. State Farm, 163 Vt. 617 (1995): carriers “owe no enforceable statutory or common law duty to injured claimants.”
Punitive damages do not follow automatically. Fly Fish Vermont, 2010 VT 33 requires conduct “outrageously reprehensible” plus malice. Bushey’s second element is met by reckless disregard; Fly Fish demands more than ordinary recklessness. The gap between the two standards is where Vermont bad-faith cases are actually fought.

You cannot be sued personally by the insured — Hamill and MurphyHamill v. Pawtucket Mutual, 2005 VT 133: “independent adjusters engaged by insurers are not liable to insureds for economic losses stemming from allegedly negligent claims investigations.” Reaffirmed in Murphy v. Patriot, 2014 VT 96, on a claim against the independent adjuster the insurer had retained: “The adjuster’s conduct is imputed to the insurer,” and imposing an independent negligence duty “would be contrary to the law of agency.” ⚠ Do not overstate it. That immunity is from the policyholder’s lawsuit only. Chapter 129 still names you and the Commissioner can still penalize you. Safe from the insured. Not safe from the regulator.

The Consumer Protection Act is NOT the Vermont workaround — and it is genuinely unsettled9 V.S.A. § 2461(b) offers “reasonable attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages not exceeding three times the value of the consideration.” Wilder (1981) held insurance is neither goods nor services. But § 2451a has been amended eight times since and now reaches “intangibles … or other property or services of any kind” — and in Messier (2018) the Supreme Court said “we do not decide” whether those amendments bring insurance in. A second barrier survives either way: Greene v. Stevens Gas Service, 2004 VT 67 — “a mere coverage dispute is insufficient to show consumer fraud.” Teach it as open, because it is open.

Read 23 V.S.A. § 941 cover to cover and you would conclude Vermont has no rule on stacking. You would be expensively wrong.
Vermont’s biggest answers sit in case law, in regulations, and in a rule that contradicts the number printed in its own statute.

🚗

UM/UIM cannot be rejected — and its minimums are DOUBLE the liability minimums

§ 941(a) is an absolute prohibition on issuance, not an offer-and-reject scheme: “No policy … may be delivered or issued for delivery in this State … unless coverage is provided…” The complete section, (a) through (g), was read: the words “reject,” “rejection” and “waive” appear NOWHERE in it. There is no signed rejection form in Vermont.

Liability minimums: $25,000 / $50,000 / $10,000 — unchanged since January 1, 1999. UM/UIM minimums: $50,000 / $100,000. Candidates routinely transpose the two sets. And uninsured motorist PROPERTY DAMAGE is also mandatory — $10,000 per claim subject to a $150 deductible, waived where the claimant has other direct-damage cover.

⚠ The clause that looks like a rejection right and is not: where liability limits exceed the UM minimums, UM limits automatically match upward “unless the policyholder otherwise directs.” That lets the policyholder stop the matching. It can never take coverage below $50,000/$100,000, and it is not a waiver. An adjuster who reads it as one will deny a covered claim.

Anti-stacking clauses are VOID — and § 941 never uses the wordMonteith v. Jefferson Insurance (Vt. 1992) is controlling: “interpolicy, antistacking provisions violate the terms of § 941 and will not be enforced.” UM/UIM in Vermont is portable — it attaches to the insured person, not the vehicle. State Farm v. Powers (1999) narrows the edge without touching the rule: policies may designate primary versus excess, because provisions “that merely establish the priority of coverage among insurers without compromising coverage for insureds do not violate § 941(a).” Progressive v. MMG (2014) limits Monteith only at the intrapolicy margin. Overruling check: Monteith was distinguished, never repudiated, and no statute abrogates it. ⚠ Where a statute is silent on a question this large, the silence is a signal to read the case law — not a finding that the state has no rule.

⚖ Comparative fault — COMBINED

12 V.S.A. § 1036(a): recovery if the plaintiff’s negligence “was not greater than the causal total negligence of the defendant OR DEFENDANTS.”

51% bar. A plaintiff at exactly 50% recovers.

A 40% plaintiff suing two defendants at 30% each RECOVERS in Vermont (40 is not greater than 60). In a per-defendant state she is barred against both. Identical facts, opposite outcomes.

New: § 1036(b), effective April 22, 2024, prohibits the defense entirely in negligence claims relating to a sexual act or sexual conduct. Pre-2024 material omits it.

🏠 Property — three absences and one surprise

No standard fire policy. Chapter 105 enumerated in full; the only plausible block, §§ 3870–3878, is repealed. Vermont is a form-approval state.

No valued policy law. Chapter 105 subchapter 3 is titled “Fire Insurance Valuations” and looks like one in the table of contents — it is an optional, PRE-loss, coinsurance-triggered agreed-value scheme. Opposites that share a vocabulary.

No total-loss percentage. § 2001(14): a totaled vehicle is one “declared by an insurance company to be a total loss.” The decision is your economic judgment, not a formula.

BUT VERMONT DOES HAVE A MATCHING RULE — and it is in the regulation, which is why so many charts miss it.

Matching is required — Reg. I-79-2 § 8.A(6)“When a covered loss requires the replacement of an item … and the replacement item… do not match adjacent items in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace such items with material of like kind and quality so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight, taking into account natural breaks. The insured shall not bear any cost over the applicable deductible, if any.” Three points: the trigger is quality, color OR size — any one; “taking into account natural breaks” is the insurer’s argument; and no betterment charge for the match. It is a general property provision, not auto-only — it reaches siding and roofing. Any chart saying “Vermont has no matching requirement” looked in the statute instead of the regulation.

📜

Three published references are affirmatively wrong about Vermont

1. A heavily-cited subrogation reference states Vermont defines salvage where a vehicle is “declared a total loss or determined to be uneconomical to repair,” pin-citing 23 V.S.A. § 2001(14). Section 2001 was read directly. The word “uneconomical” appears nowhere in it. Its conclusion is right; its quotation and pin cite are not.

2. A peer-reviewed bar association survey lists Vermont as a valued-policy state citing “VT. STAT. ANN. INS. CODE § 862.053.” Vermont has no “Insurance Code” and no § 862.053. Tex. Ins. Code § 862.053 IS the Texas valued policy law. The error is visible on the face of the citation.

3. A national bad-faith compendium describes § 4724(9) as providing “a statutory basis for action.” The Vermont Supreme Court holds the exact opposite.

The lesson is cheap to apply: when a source gives you a number or a quotation TOGETHER WITH a pin cite, read the cited section. The pin cite is the easiest thing in the world to check, and it is the thing nobody checks.

🏭

Workers’ Compensation: The Statute’s Number Is Not the Operative Number

Plus a guaranty carve-out that removes the ceiling, and two document traps on the state’s own site

PPD — teach 405 and 550, not 330. § 648(a) says impairment “multiplied by 330 weeks.” That is not what gets paid. Rule 10.1400: 405 weeks for everything except the spine. Rule 10.1500: 550 weeks for the back or spine. Combined injuries are added, never blended. The spine figure is not really a conflict — § 648(c) calibrates a 60% spine impairment to 330 weeks, and 60% of 550 IS 330. The non-spine 405 is the genuine divergence.
TWO AMA GUIDES EDITIONS ARE IN FORCE AT ONCE. Rule 10.1300 uses the Fifth Edition generally; Rule 10.1310 sends mental and behavioral disorders to Chapter 14 of the SIXTH Edition. Rating a psychiatric impairment off the Fifth is wrong in Vermont. And Vermont has no scheduled-member table at all — no “so many weeks for a thumb.”
The 21-day decision rule is in the RULES, not the statute. § 662 states no deadline. Rule 3.2200: determine compensability within 21 days, and to deny, file a Form 2 with the Commissioner and the worker inside that window. Rule 3.2210: one written-justified extension of up to 21 more days. Rule 3.2400: miss it and the Commissioner may order interim payments.
Medical control is a HYBRID. § 640 lets the employer designate who initially treats; “thereafter, the employee may select another” on written notice stating reasons plus the new provider’s details. Neither the pure employer-direction rule nor the pure employee-choice rule.
Rates run July to July. For 7/1/2026–6/30/2027: maximum $1,914.00, minimum $638.00 (150% and 50% of average compensation). Waiting period 3 days, paid back if disability runs 7 consecutive calendar days. Notice “as soon as practicable”; claim filed within SIX MONTHS.
⚠ Two document traps on the state’s own site, pointing opposite ways. A Department of Labor page published June 2025 links a rates PDF whose table stops at 2022–23; the near-identical URL without /document/ is current through 2026–27. And the current rules memo is served from a file named “July2025” while the document is dated 1 July 2026. Read the date printed inside the document — never the filename, never the URL, never the page date.
The adjusters manual is fourteen years old and its dollar figures are WRONG. Last revised 10/15/2012, it states burial at $5,500 and transportation at $1,000. Both were superseded in 2018 and 2024 — the current figures are $10,000 and $5,000. Use it for procedure. Never for numbers.

The guaranty fund is not a chapter — and workers’ compensation is EXEMPT from its capSearching Title 8 for a property and casualty guaranty chapter finds nothing but chapter 112, which is life and health. The P&C association is subchapter 9 of chapter 101, §§ 3611–3626. And read § 3615 carefully: the Association covers each claim “that, UNLESS IT IS A CLAIM ARISING OUT OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY, is less than $500,000.00.” Workers’ compensation covered claims have NO statutory ceiling — bounded only by policy limits. That is backwards from what most adjusters expect. Also absent: no $100 NAIC deductible and no net-worth exclusion. Unearned premium has a $25 floor, not a cap. Claims are barred 3 years from the determination of insolvency. The cap was last amended in 2009 — verified, not assumed.

Fraud: three absences and one dutyThere is NO fraud warning statement requirement in Vermont — not mandatory, not optional, no provision at all. There is NO insurance fraud bureau: Title 8 has exactly one fraud chapter (130), containing exactly one section (4750), which creates no bureau and routes referrals to “the Commissioner of Labor or the Attorney General.” There is NO individual reporting deadline — the obligation is systemic, not per-file. What Vermont does require is an anti-fraud PLAN (§ 4750), $500/day to a $10,000 maximum for failing to maintain one — and note it requires “hiring of or contracting for fraud investigators,” not an SIU. The crime itself is in Title 13 § 2031, not the insurance title: under $900, 6 months and $5,000; over $900, 5 years and $10,000; second offense, $20,000.

Ten scenarios — each one a place Vermont departs from the national rule.
Read the fact pattern before the options. Most carry a plausible wrong answer that is simply the majority rule somewhere else — and three of them are what a careful reading of the Vermont statute alone would tell you.

🎯

Top Exam Tips — Vermont Adjuster Regulations

1. FIVE separate licenses, not lines of authority. The public adjuster pays $200 and sits the same 14-33 exam as the P&C adjuster.
2. Vermont publishes NO passing score. Statute, regulations, all three content outlines and the bulletin are silent. The circulating “70%” has no source.
3. The supervision route needs a supervisor established 3+ years. Two years’ experience or special training are the alternatives.
4. Catastrophe is a flat EXEMPTION — no declaration, no notice, no fee — but you must be sent in on behalf of a DULY ADMITTED insurer.
5. Adjusters renew EVEN years, producers ODD. Common expiration, not prorated, applies to new applicants regardless of issue date.
6. No CE — except workers’ compensation adjusters, who owe one Department of LABOR seminar every 2 years. Records: 3 years. Score shelf life: 24 months.
7. Every claim deadline is in Reg. I-79-2 and every one is a BUSINESS day. 10 acknowledge · 15 affirm-or-deny · 10 pay. No begin-investigation deadline exists.
8. Two clocks, two triggers: first party runs from proofs of loss, third party from notice of claim. And § 3665a interest runs from proof of loss while payment runs from settlement.
9. THIRTEEN acts (A)–(M), not sixteen. General business practice REQUIRED — but Bushey bad faith needs only one denial. No private right of action.
10. You cannot be sued by the insured (Hamill, Murphy) — but the Commissioner can fine you personally, $1,000, or $10,000 if willful.
11. UM/UIM CANNOT be rejected and its $50K/$100K minimums are DOUBLE the 25/50/10 liability minimums, unchanged since 1999. Anti-stacking clauses are VOID (Monteith).
12. Comparative fault is measured against defendants COMBINED — 51% bar. No SFP, no valued policy law, no total-loss percentage — but matching IS required. Guaranty $500,000 with comp EXEMPT; PPD ×405 / ×550, not 330.

8 V.S.A. § 4791

Adjuster acts “in behalf of insurers”; public adjuster “in behalf of the insured.” Same sentence, four words changed. No definition of “workers’ compensation adjuster” exists.

8 V.S.A. § 4803(a)(4)

Two years’ experience, special training, or supervision by a licensee “established in business for not less than three years.”

8 V.S.A. § 4803(c)(3)

Records at the licensed address, including compensation received, open to the Commissioner “at all times,” retained 3 years. Not the insurer’s 5/2.

8 V.S.A. § 4803(d)(2)

Catastrophe — a flat exemption, no declaration required, gated on being sent in for a duly admitted insurer. The heading names comp adjusters; the sentence does not.

8 V.S.A. § 4803(e)

The Commissioner SHALL require workers’ compensation adjuster training — one seminar every 2 years, run by the Department of LABOR.

8 V.S.A. § 4798(b)(2)

“All other license type” expires 1 April of the EVEN-numbered year. Producers take odd years. Not prorated.

8 V.S.A. § 4800(3)(A)

Election of residency — a resident license is VOID if you also hold or apply for a license elsewhere.

8 V.S.A. § 4800(3)(D)(vii)

“a grade determined by the Commissioner” — the reason Vermont publishes no passing score. Four instruments checked; all silent.

8 V.S.A. § 4722(1)

“Person” includes “agents, brokers, appraisers, and adjusters” — which is how § 4726(b) reaches you for $1,000, or $10,000 if willful.

8 V.S.A. § 4724(9)

Thirteen acts, (A)–(M). “with such frequency as to indicate a business practice” — a single act is not a statutory violation. No numbers anywhere in it.

Reg. I-1979-02 (Rev. 7/1/18)

CVR 21-020-008 — every claim deadline in Vermont, all in business days. Excludes workers’ compensation, title and surety.

Reg. I-79-2 § 8.A(6)

Matching — “reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight, taking into account natural breaks,” at no cost above the deductible. Not auto-only.

Reg. I-79-2 § 8.A(3)

Anti-steering is a consequence rule: “If insurer insists that repairs be done by a specific repairer, said insurer shall GUARANTEE all work.”

DFR Bulletin #206 (Rev. 2/2026)

Virtual adjustment — in-person inspection on request, condition deductions require an actual inspection, none for engine cleaning or compliant tires.

8 V.S.A. § 3665a

Pay 10 business days from settlement — but interest accrues from 30 days after PROOF OF LOSS. § 3665 is REPEALED.

8 V.S.A. § 3663

Suit-limitation floor of 12 months; anything shorter is void. Enforced in Gilman (Vt. 2003) against a suit filed 34 months out.

8 V.S.A. § 3615

Guaranty cap $500,000 — “unless it is a claim arising out of a workers’ compensation policy.” No $100 deductible, no net-worth exclusion.

23 V.S.A. § 941

UM/UIM mandatory, $50K/$100K, plus $10,000 property damage with a $150 deductible. “Reject,” “rejection” and “waive” appear nowhere in it.

Monteith v. Jefferson Ins. Co.

Vt. 1992 — “interpolicy, antistacking provisions violate … § 941 and will not be enforced.” UM/UIM is portable. The statute gives no hint of this.

Bushey v. Allstate

164 Vt. 399 (1995) — no reasonable basis + knew or recklessly disregarded. Available for a single denial, unlike the statute.

Hamill & Murphy

2005 VT 133 · 2014 VT 96 — independent adjusters are NOT personally liable to insureds; conduct is imputed to the insurer. Regulatory exposure survives.

12 V.S.A. § 1036(a)

“the causal total negligence of the defendant or defendants” — fault compared to the COMBINED defendants. 51% bar; 50% recovers.

21 V.S.A. § 648 vs Rule 10

The statute says 330 weeks. The rules say 405 (non-spine) and 550 (spine). Teach the rules. 60% × 550 = 330, which is why the spine number only looks like a conflict.

WC Rule 3.2200

21 days to accept or deny, by Form 2 filed with the Commissioner and the worker. Rule 3.2210 adds 21 more on written justification.

Like learning this way? There's a whole library of them.

If the old manual you inherited from the office breakroom isn't cutting it and this format fits how your brain actually works, you'll want the rest. There are 56 Interactive Mind Maps like this one in the TESTivity Platinum Insurance Adjuster package — covering the full curriculum, right alongside the practice questions, exam simulators, and study guides.

Get the Platinum Adjuster Package See the full Vermont Adjuster study guide →

🧭

Studying for a different state?

This concept is the same wherever you sit for the exam — but your study guide and prep package should match your state. Find your state's L&H and P&C guides here →