Wyoming · Insurance Adjuster Sample Interactive Mind Map
Wyoming Adjuster Regulations
A visual breakdown of the Wyoming rules an adjuster is tested on — including the seventeen unfair claims acts with no deadlines, the 45-day statute with two different triggers, and the four regulations whose captions describe something other than their text.
Wyoming’s distinguishing habit is that it inverts the rules you are most confident about. Almost every state exempts salaried insurer employees from adjuster licensing; Wyoming licenses them — and the section that looks like an exemption, § 26-9-204, turns out to be a producer provision. Most states that license public adjusters impose a bond, a fee cap and a written contract; Wyoming licenses them as CONSULTANTS and imposes none of the five standard protections.
Then the claims law. § 26-13-124 contains seventeen prohibited acts and not one deadline — every temporal reference is a reasonableness standard, and Wyoming has adopted no claims-handling regulation to supply numbers. The 45-day statute has two different triggers: life and health run from the proofs of loss, but property and casualty run from the CLAIM, which is materially earlier — and missing either carries no self-executing penalty. Meanwhile § 26-1-102(a)(xx) names adjusters in its definition of “person,” and § 26-1-107(b) writes individual adjusters their own penalty tier of $1,000 and $10,000.
Wyoming also recognizes an independent first-party bad faith tort (McCullough), tests it against an objective “fairly debatable” standard, allows liability under Hatch even where the denial was fairly debatable, and permits punitive damages with no cap at all — because the state constitution forbids the legislature from enacting one.
This map walks the three lines and why there is no workers’ compensation line (not the reason everyone gives); the 70% RAW passing score reported only as pass or fail; the roof regulation rewritten on 31 July 2025, which replaced “slope” with facet, banned labor depreciation on installation and tear-off, and declared photographs alone an unreasonable investigation; the automobile chapter, where minimums are 25/50/20, there is no UIM statute at all, comparative fault bars at “not more than fifty percent” so a claimant at exactly 50% still recovers, and the famous 75% total-loss threshold applies only when no insurer is involved; and § 27-14-105, which obliges the third party’s insurer to give the state fifteen days’ notice before settling. Ten scenario questions at the end, several built on what published Wyoming material gets wrong.
Wyoming licenses the people most states exempt — and there is no adjuster chapter to find it in.
Chapter 9 is captioned “Agencies and Adjusters” but Article 1 is entirely defunct and Article 2 is captioned “Insurance Producers.” Adjusters are grafted in by exactly two hooks.
Chapter 9 is captioned “Agencies and Adjusters” but Article 1 is entirely defunct and Article 2 is captioned “Insurance Producers.” Adjusters are grafted in by exactly two hooks.
| Line under § 26-9-219(a) | Exam | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Property insurance (§ 26-5-104) | Exam 17 · 100 q · 2 hr | The main credential |
| Casualty insurance (§ 26-5-106) | Exam 17 | § 26-5-106(a)(iii) already INCLUDES employer-injury obligations |
| Crop insurance (§ 26-9-202(a)(xxi)) | Exam 31 · 60 q · 1 hr | Department says a CAP card waives it — no statutory hook located |
| Workers’ compensation | NO SUCH LINE | A structural negative — § 26-9-219(a) is a closed list of three |
🧾
Salaried insurer employees are NOT exempt — and § 26-9-204 is the trap
There is no staff-adjuster exemption anywhere in Wyoming. Not in § 26-1-102(a)(i), not in § 26-9-202(a)(xxv), not in § 26-9-219. To the contrary, § 26-9-219(b)(iii) contemplates a licensee who is “a full-time salaried employee of a licensed adjuster.”
⚠ § 26-9-204 is captioned “Exceptions to Licensing” and its (b)(i) exempts insurer personnel “engaged in the … handling of claims.” Read alone that is a staff-adjuster exemption in as many words. It is not one. § 26-9-204(a) opens: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require an insurer to obtain an insurance producer license.” The entire section is about the PRODUCER license. DO NOT CITE IT AS AN ADJUSTER EXEMPTION.
The right question in Wyoming is not “am I exempt?” It is “am I acting in this state on behalf of an insurer to investigate and negotiate settlements, or apply facts to policy provisions, on a property or casualty claim?” If yes, you need the license — salaried or not.
⚠ § 26-9-204 is captioned “Exceptions to Licensing” and its (b)(i) exempts insurer personnel “engaged in the … handling of claims.” Read alone that is a staff-adjuster exemption in as many words. It is not one. § 26-9-204(a) opens: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require an insurer to obtain an insurance producer license.” The entire section is about the PRODUCER license. DO NOT CITE IT AS AN ADJUSTER EXEMPTION.
The right question in Wyoming is not “am I exempt?” It is “am I acting in this state on behalf of an insurer to investigate and negotiate settlements, or apply facts to policy provisions, on a property or casualty claim?” If yes, you need the license — salaried or not.
The definition and the licensing trigger are NOT the same test§ 26-1-102(a)(i) defines an adjuster as one who “either investigates and negotiates settlements relative to insurance claims or applies the factual circumstances of an insurance claim to the insurance policy provisions” — and is silent about whom the adjuster acts for. § 26-9-219(c) is not: it requires a license of an adjuster acting “on behalf of an insurer.” Insured-side adjusting is captured through the consultant license instead. ⚠ And note the carve-out’s scope: attorneys and placing agents are outside the definition “for the purposes of chapter 9” — licensing only. They stay inside the chapter 13 definition of “person.”
✅ The three real exclusions — § 26-9-219
Losses “of an unusual, uncommon or unique nature requiring special expertise or knowledge not readily available among adjusters licensed in this state”
“[T]he adjustment of a series of losses resulting from a catastrophe common to those losses”
§ 26-9-219(f) — portable electronic device claim staff: collect or furnish claim information, data entry, supervised by a licensee who may not supervise more than 25 persons
⚠ BOTH of the first two carry an INSURER NOTICE DUTY, and it runs BEFORE the work: “shall notify the commissioner of such action PRIOR TO the unlicensed adjuster acting in this state”
🚫 Public adjusters — the five missing protections
The phrase “public adjuster” appears NOWHERE in Title 26. The only authority is Rule ch. 18 § 18-2(a)(i), which spells it “public adjustor” and routes them into the CONSULTANT license
NO bond · NO fee cap · NO written-contract requirement · NO rescission right · NO solicitation moratorium
Proved by enumerating § 26-9-220(a)–(f), § 26-9-219(a)–(g), § 26-4-101(a)(ix) and (xii), and Rule ch. 18 §§ 18-1 to 18-9
Exam 47 — 150 questions, 2.5 hours. Not the adjuster’s 100 in 2. § 26-9-220(c): no license valid longer than 24 months. (f): no dual capacity. Applications are mailed on paper with a check
Wyoming licenses public adjusters and regulates their conduct LESS than states that do not license them at allStates that license public adjusters separately almost always regulate them heavily — a bond because they handle settlement money, a percentage cap because desperate insureds sign bad contracts, a rescission window because those contracts get signed at the kitchen table days after a fire. Wyoming has the license and none of the guardrails. Practical consequence: a public adjuster’s exposure here runs through the general unfair practices article and § 26-1-107, not through any public-adjuster conduct statute.
The standard is a RAW percentage. The report is binary. You will never see a number.
Statute and agency agree exactly on fees — unusual. But there is no records retention period, no adjuster regulation, and a late penalty that doubles the fee.
Statute and agency agree exactly on fees — unusual. But there is no records retention period, no adjuster regulation, and a late penalty that doubles the fee.
✅ The score IS answerable — and it is RAW
Pearson’s Wyoming handbook: “You need to answer 70% of questions correctly in order to pass the examination.”
The words “scaled,” “scale score” and “raw score” do not appear anywhere in the handbook. No conversion, no equating table. Seventy of the hundred on exam 17. Forty-two of the sixty on exam 31.
The words “scaled,” “scale score” and “raw score” do not appear anywhere in the handbook. No conversion, no equating table. Seventy of the hundred on exam 17. Forty-two of the sixty on exam 31.
🚫 But the report tells you nothing
“When candidates complete the examination, they will receive a score report marked ‘pass’ or ‘fail’.”
Not on a pass. Not on a fail. In a state that reports a number, a near miss tells you how near and you can calibrate a retake. Wyoming tells you nothing — so there is no substitute for going in with real margin. Your practice exams are the only numeric feedback you will ever get.
Not on a pass. Not on a fail. In a state that reports a number, a near miss tells you how near and you can calibrate a retake. Wyoming tells you nothing — so there is no substitute for going in with real margin. Your practice exams are the only numeric feedback you will ever get.
| Money — and statute and agency AGREE | Resident | Nonresident |
|---|---|---|
| § 26-4-101(a)(ix) — application and issuance | $100 | $150 |
| Continuation (every 2 years) | $100 | $150 |
| Late renewal — penalty EQUALS the fee | $100 + $100 = $200 | $150 + $150 = $300 |
| Examination — exams 17, 31 and 47 alike | $96 | $96 |
| Fingerprinting — Department figure, NOT statutory | $39 | n/a |
| Prelicensing course | $0 — none required | $0 |
The doubling penalty is STATUTE-DERIVED — the Department does not publish it§ 26-9-207(c): “A licensee who allows his license to lapse may, within twelve (12) months from the due date … reinstate the same license without the necessity of passing a written examination. However, a penalty equal to the amount of the continuation fee shall be required in addition to the continuation fee.” You have to read § 26-9-207(c) against § 26-4-101(a)(ix) to find the $200 and $300 — neither figure appears on the adjuster page. Past twelve months, reinstatement without re-examination is gone. ⚠ And the $39 fingerprint fee is NOT in the statute either — § 26-4-101 has no fingerprint line item; § 26-9-219(b)(vii) says only that the applicant bears the cost. It can change without legislation.
🧾
There is NO records retention period — and the three-year rule is not yours
§ 26-9-219(b)(v) requires you to “have and maintain an office accessible to the public and keep therein the usual and customary records … pertaining to transactions under the license” — and sets no retention term at all.
⚠ The three-year rule people cite is § 26-9-228(c): “The insurance producer shall keep the record available for inspection for a period of at least three (3) years” — and § 26-9-228(a) opens “Each resident insurance producer…” DO NOT TELL A WYOMING ADJUSTER THEY OWE A THREE-YEAR RETENTION DUTY.
⚠ And note the office rule is STRICTER for you than for consultants. Rule ch. 18 gives consultants an express proviso — “this provision does not prohibit maintenance of the office in the licensee’s home” — and § 26-9-219(b)(v) contains no equivalent. No authority says a home office is unlawful for an adjuster; but the legislature wrote the proviso for one license type and not the other, in adjacent provisions.
⚠ The three-year rule people cite is § 26-9-228(c): “The insurance producer shall keep the record available for inspection for a period of at least three (3) years” — and § 26-9-228(a) opens “Each resident insurance producer…” DO NOT TELL A WYOMING ADJUSTER THEY OWE A THREE-YEAR RETENTION DUTY.
⚠ And note the office rule is STRICTER for you than for consultants. Rule ch. 18 gives consultants an express proviso — “this provision does not prohibit maintenance of the office in the licensee’s home” — and § 26-9-219(b)(v) contains no equivalent. No authority says a home office is unlawful for an adjuster; but the legislature wrote the proviso for one license type and not the other, in adjacent provisions.
Continuing education — the statute NAMES adjusters, twice§ 26-9-231(a): “Resident insurance producers, title agents …, adjusters, nonresident adjusters not exempted under subsection (f), and other resident persons required to be licensed under this chapter shall complete twenty-four (24) classroom hours … within each two (2) year licensing period. Of the twenty-four (24) hours at least three (3) shall relate to ethical requirements.” Most states’ CE statutes are producer-centric and sweep adjusters in — or fail to — through a scope clause. Wyoming names them in the operative sentence. There is nothing to construe. § 26-9-231(f) runs both ways: a nonresident who has met home-state CE is exempt; a nonresident not licensed at home is subject to it in full. Carry-over: 12 general hours earned within 120 days, and never ethics hours.
🧾
A live statute-versus-agency conflict — and the statute wins
The Department’s CE page states flatly: “No extensions are granted for any reason.”
§ 26-9-231(e) empowers the Commissioner to grant up to a one-year extension for good cause. Rule § 20-4 provides for one on timely written request.
The statute governs. Know the statutory rule, and know that the page says otherwise — because the page is what will be quoted at you, and knowing it is wrong is the whole value of having read the statute.
§ 26-9-231(e) empowers the Commissioner to grant up to a one-year extension for good cause. Rule § 20-4 provides for one on timely written request.
The statute governs. Know the statutory rule, and know that the page says otherwise — because the page is what will be quoted at you, and knowing it is wrong is the whole value of having read the statute.
| Clocks and consequences | Wyoming |
|---|---|
| License term | 2 years — last day of your BIRTH MONTH |
| Reinstatement without re-examination | 12 months |
| Contact-information change | 30 days (§ 26-9-207(f)) |
| Administrative action in another jurisdiction | 30 days after final disposition |
| Criminal prosecution — note the trigger | 30 days after the INITIAL PRETRIAL HEARING |
| Exam validity before application | 1 year |
| Retake wait | 24 hours |
| Penalty — INDIVIDUAL agent or adjuster | $1,000 per offense · $10,000 per year |
| Penalty — insurer or entity | $5,000 per offense · $50,000 per year |
| Catastrophe authorization | Commissioner declaration · only an ADMITTED INSURER may request · 90 days |
| DHS non-reciprocating jurisdictions | 31 |
Read the 31-state list correctly — it is routinely misdescribedThe Department: “Residents of the following states must hold an adjuster license in their resident state … Wyoming will not reciprocate DHS licenses from residents of these states.” AK · AZ · AR · CT · DE · FL · GA · HI · IA · ID · KY · LA · ME · MI · MN · MS · MT · NC · NH · NM · NV · NY · OK · OR · PR · RI · SC · TX · UT · VT · WV. ⚠ It is NOT a list of states Wyoming refuses to deal with. It is a list of states that DO license adjusters — so § 26-9-219(d)’s predicate (“does not license adjusters”) fails for their residents, and they must hold their own resident license. A Department operational list with no statutory counterpart. It can change without legislation — check it at application, not from a course. Note too that § 26-9-215, the section actually captioned “Reciprocity,” does NOT reach adjusters — it cross-references § 26-9-208, a producer provision.
Seventeen prohibited acts, one subsection, and not a single deadline.
Wyoming has adopted no claims-handling regulation to supply numbers — and two of the regulations that look like they might are caption traps.
Wyoming has adopted no claims-handling regulation to supply numbers — and two of the regulations that look like they might are caption traps.
§ 26-13-124 — the chapeau, and it has ONE qualifying clause“(a) A person is considered to be engaging in an unfair method of competition and unfair and deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance if that person commits or performs with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following unfair claims settlement practices:” Wyoming tracks the NAIC chapeau verbatim and does NOT bolt on the “single act committed in flagrant or conscious disregard” alternative that many states add. ⚠ But the clause is grammatically ambiguous between “commits [with such frequency] or performs with such frequency” and “commits [full stop] or performs with such frequency.” No Wyoming statutory text resolves it and no Supreme Court construction of the chapeau was located. UNRESOLVED — do not assert a single-act theory without a case, and do not assume the frequency element protects you absolutely either.
| § 26-13-124(a) | The acts an adjuster meets daily — and every temporal word in them |
|---|---|
| (ii) | Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly on communications |
| (iii) | Failing to adopt reasonable standards for prompt investigation |
| (iv) | Refusing to pay without a reasonable investigation based on all available information |
| (v) | Failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements completed |
| (vi) | Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements where liability is reasonably clear |
| (vii) | Compelling insureds to litigate by offering substantially less than amounts ultimately recovered |
| (xiii) | Failing to settle under one portion of coverage to influence settlement under another |
| (xiv) | Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis for denial or a compromise offer |
| TOTAL | 17 acts · ZERO numeric deadlines |
Compliance in Wyoming is a judgment call assessed AFTER THE FACT, on your fileEvery temporal reference in all seventeen acts is a reasonableness standard — reasonably promptly, prompt investigation, within a reasonable time, prompt, fair and equitable, promptly provide. And Wyoming has adopted NO NAIC-style claims-handling regulation to supply numbers. In a state with bright-line deadlines, compliance is arithmetic — you either acknowledged in fifteen days or you did not. Here there is no bright line to stand behind, which means the documentation habits that look like overkill elsewhere are the only defense available. THE ABSENCE OF A CLOCK IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF A DUTY. IT IS THE ABSENCE OF A SAFE HARBOR.
🧾
You are inside this statute by name — and you have your own penalty tier
Chapter 13 has no definitions section of its own (§ 26-13-101 is “Short title”), so the Title-wide § 26-1-102 supplies them. § 26-1-102(a)(xx): “‘person’ means an individual, insurer, company, association, organization, Lloyd’s insurer, society, reciprocal insurer …, partnership, syndicate, business trust, corporation, agent, general agent, broker, adjuster and any legal entity.”
Chain it: § 26-13-124(a) runs against “a person” · § 26-13-102 binds “no person” · § 26-13-115(a) empowers the Commissioner against “any person in this state.”
⚠ And § 26-1-107(b) writes you your own tier: “Any person who violates, or who instructs his agent or adjuster to violate, any provision of this code … shall pay a civil penalty … of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each offense, or fifty thousand ($50,000.00) in the aggregate … In the case of individual agents or adjusters, the civil penalty shall be not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each offense or ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in the aggregate.”
The lower tier is real, personal and collectible — and the fact that the legislature wrote a SEPARATE tier for individual adjusters is structural evidence that naming you in § 26-1-102(a)(xx) was not a drafting accident. They contemplated adjuster-level enforcement and priced it.
Chain it: § 26-13-124(a) runs against “a person” · § 26-13-102 binds “no person” · § 26-13-115(a) empowers the Commissioner against “any person in this state.”
⚠ And § 26-1-107(b) writes you your own tier: “Any person who violates, or who instructs his agent or adjuster to violate, any provision of this code … shall pay a civil penalty … of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each offense, or fifty thousand ($50,000.00) in the aggregate … In the case of individual agents or adjusters, the civil penalty shall be not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each offense or ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in the aggregate.”
The lower tier is real, personal and collectible — and the fact that the legislature wrote a SEPARATE tier for individual adjusters is structural evidence that naming you in § 26-1-102(a)(xx) was not a drafting accident. They contemplated adjuster-level enforcement and priced it.
🚫 Rule ch. 33 — “Unfair Trade Practices Regulation”
SIX sections: 33-1 Authority · 33-2 Unfair Discrimination (underwriting) · 33-3 Senior-Specific Certifications (producer marketing) · 33-4 Adjustment of Physical Damage Claims · 33-5 Department Inquiries · 33-6 Effective Date
§ 33-4 is the ENTIRE claims content, and it is three sentences. Insurers shall adjust “be it first or third party claims” by (i) pay on an appraisal · (ii) repair · (iii) replace
The only number in the chapter runs to the REGULATOR: § 33-5 — 20 calendar days to answer a Division inquiry
NO acknowledge-within-X. NO affirm-or-deny-within-Y. NO pay-within-Z. And NO Purpose or Scope section at all.
⚠ Rule ch. 25 — “Information Practices”
§ 25-1, the entire section: “These rules and regulations are authorized by the Wyoming Public Records Act (W.S. § 16-4-201 et seq.).”
Sections include Request for Access · Categories of Non-Disclosable Records · PERSONNEL RECORDS · Medical Records
IT REGULATES THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT’S OWN FILING CABINETS. It is not the NAIC Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Model Act, despite the caption. “Personnel Records” is the tell.
ZERO claim-handling duties on anyone. Anyone citing 044-25 for adjuster duties has been fooled by a caption. The real insurer-facing privacy rule is ch. 54
| § 26-15-124 — the 45-day statute | Clock starts on receipt of | Exceptions |
|---|---|---|
| (a) life, accident, health | the PROOFS OF LOSS and supporting evidence | Medical peer review committee; § 26-16-112(a) |
| (b) PROPERTY or CASUALTY | the CLAIM and supporting bills | NONE — (b) has no exception clauses at all |
| (c) the remedy — all lines | Attorney’s fee + 10% per year | On a refusal to pay that is “unreasonable OR without cause” |
🧾
The P&C trigger is EARLIER, and missing the 45 days costs nothing by itself
Subsection (b) has NO proof-of-loss precondition. The property and casualty clock runs from receipt of the CLAIM — materially earlier than a formal, completed proof of loss. AN ADJUSTER WHO DIARIES 45 DAYS FROM A COMPLETED PROOF OF LOSS ON A P&C FILE HAS DIARIED THE WRONG DATE.
⚠ And the remedy is not keyed to the deadline. § 26-15-124(c) attaches to a “refus[al] to pay the full amount of a loss … unreasonable or without cause” — not to blowing the 45 days. § 26-15-124 attaches NO self-executing penalty and NO automatic interest to a bare deadline miss. Missing it is evidence, not a violation with its own price tag — a real difference from states where an overdue claim bears interest by operation of the statute.
⚠ CALENDAR OR BUSINESS DAYS? THE STATUTE IS SILENT. Both subsections say only “within forty-five (45) days.” There is structural evidence the drafters know how to be explicit — Rule § 33-5(a)(i) says “twenty (20) calendar days”, § 26-52-202 says “calendar days”, § 26-40-201(j) says “one (1) business day” — but § 26-15-124 says none of those things. Diary it as calendar, and know the statute does not say so.
⚠ And the remedy is not keyed to the deadline. § 26-15-124(c) attaches to a “refus[al] to pay the full amount of a loss … unreasonable or without cause” — not to blowing the 45 days. § 26-15-124 attaches NO self-executing penalty and NO automatic interest to a bare deadline miss. Missing it is evidence, not a violation with its own price tag — a real difference from states where an overdue claim bears interest by operation of the statute.
⚠ CALENDAR OR BUSINESS DAYS? THE STATUTE IS SILENT. Both subsections say only “within forty-five (45) days.” There is structural evidence the drafters know how to be explicit — Rule § 33-5(a)(i) says “twenty (20) calendar days”, § 26-52-202 says “calendar days”, § 26-40-201(j) says “one (1) business day” — but § 26-15-124 says none of those things. Diary it as calendar, and know the statute does not say so.
A private right of action: the STATUTE is silent — the bar is JUDICIALChapter 13 Article 1 was enumerated section by section — §§ 26-13-101 to 26-13-122, 26-13-123 REPEALED, 26-13-124, 26-13-125. No section is captioned “civil remedy,” “private cause of action,” “damages” or “remedies.” Enforcement is administrative: § 26-13-115 desist orders, with § 26-13-115(d) providing that no order “in any way relieves or absolves any person affected by the order from any other liability” — a clause that preserves other liabilities without creating one. ⚠ Several states foreclose private suits under their unfair claims article by EXPRESS STATUTE. Wyoming does not. A judicial rule can move; a statutory bar cannot. Worth knowing when someone tells you confidently there is no private right of action under the UTPA — they are probably right, and the reason is not in the statute they are citing.
Wyoming recognizes the first-party bad faith tort — and the constitution forbids capping the punitive damages.
The liability standard is objective. And under Hatch you can lose even when the denial was fairly debatable.
The liability standard is objective. And under Hatch you can lose even when the denial was fairly debatable.
McCullough v. Golden Rule Insurance Co., 1990 WY 35, 789 P.2d 855 — on certified questions from the Tenth Circuit“Despite the diversity among the jurisdictions, we believe the superior view recognizes the existence of the independent tort for violation of a duty of good faith and fair dealing in insurance policy application by the carrier to its insured.”
The test: “the appropriate test to determine bad faith is the objective standard whether the validity of the denied claim was not fairly debatable … if a realistic question of liability does exist, the insurance carrier is entitled to reasonably pursue that debate without exposure.”
The elements, restated by the Court in Bergantino (2021) and Peterson (2022): “(1) the absence of any reasonable basis for denying a claim for benefits; and (2) the insurer’s knowledge or reckless disregard of the lack of a reasonable basis.” The standard is OBJECTIVE — it does not ask what you believed. A sincere but unreasonable denial is not protected by your sincerity; a denial you were unenthusiastic about IS protected if the question was genuinely debatable.
The test: “the appropriate test to determine bad faith is the objective standard whether the validity of the denied claim was not fairly debatable … if a realistic question of liability does exist, the insurance carrier is entitled to reasonably pursue that debate without exposure.”
The elements, restated by the Court in Bergantino (2021) and Peterson (2022): “(1) the absence of any reasonable basis for denying a claim for benefits; and (2) the insurer’s knowledge or reckless disregard of the lack of a reasonable basis.” The standard is OBJECTIVE — it does not ask what you believed. A sincere but unreasonable denial is not protected by your sincerity; a denial you were unenthusiastic about IS protected if the question was genuinely debatable.
🧾
Hatch: you can lose even when the denial was fairly debatable
Hatch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 842 P.2d 1089 (Wyo. 1992) holds an insurer liable for how it handled the file regardless of whether the denial was defensible — an insurer “cannot properly go beyond a reasonable denial of the claim and engage in unreasonable or unfair behavior to gain an unfair advantage.” A plaintiff “may simultaneously bring an action both for breach of contract and for bad faith.”
What the Court actually condemned was INVESTIGATIVE and PROCEDURAL, not a pricing dispute: unreasonable inventory demands · unsupervised searches of the insured’s home · refusing the insured access to investigative reports · demanding extensive medical and personal records · threatening cancellation · hostile conduct toward the insured.
⚠ THE OPERATIONAL POINT: HOW you handle the file is separately actionable from WHETHER you were right to deny it. Every item on that list is something an adjuster does or fails to do during the investigation — not a number on a settlement sheet. A DEFENSIBLE DENIAL DOES NOT IMMUNIZE AN INDEFENSIBLE INVESTIGATION.
What the Court actually condemned was INVESTIGATIVE and PROCEDURAL, not a pricing dispute: unreasonable inventory demands · unsupervised searches of the insured’s home · refusing the insured access to investigative reports · demanding extensive medical and personal records · threatening cancellation · hostile conduct toward the insured.
⚠ THE OPERATIONAL POINT: HOW you handle the file is separately actionable from WHETHER you were right to deny it. Every item on that list is something an adjuster does or fails to do during the investigation — not a number on a settlement sheet. A DEFENSIBLE DENIAL DOES NOT IMMUNIZE AN INDEFENSIBLE INVESTIGATION.
⚠ Third-party bad faith EXISTS
Gainsco Ins. Co. v. Amoco Prod. Co., 2002 WY 122 ¶ 12: a claim lies where a liability insurer “fails in bad faith to settle a third-party claim within policy limits against its insured.”
The standard, ¶ 13: “whether a prudent insurer would have accepted the settlement offer if it alone were to be liable for the entire judgment.”
Requires an EXCESS JUDGMENT. On stipulated judgments the claim is assignable — but where insured and claimant settle without the insurer, the claimant must prove the settlement reasonable. Gainsco itself found it was not.
The standard, ¶ 13: “whether a prudent insurer would have accepted the settlement offer if it alone were to be liable for the entire judgment.”
Requires an EXCESS JUDGMENT. On stipulated judgments the claim is assignable — but where insured and claimant settle without the insurer, the claimant must prove the settlement reasonable. Gainsco itself found it was not.
✅ But it is the INSURED’s claim, never the claimant’s
Herrig v. Herrig, 844 P.2d 487 (Wyo. 1992): “the duty of good faith and fair dealing runs only from the insurer to the insured.”
A third-party claimant has NO direct action against the insurer, in contract or in tort. Extending one would put insurers in an “untenable position” of conflicting duties.
That single sentence disposes of most demand letters that threaten a bad-faith action from the claimant’s side of a liability file.
A third-party claimant has NO direct action against the insurer, in contract or in tort. Extending one would put insurers in an “untenable position” of conflicting duties.
That single sentence disposes of most demand letters that threaten a bad-faith action from the claimant’s side of a liability file.
Punitive damages: wanton or willful — and NO CAP IS POSSIBLEMcCullough: punitive damages “should remain consistent in Wyoming law and require wanton or willful misconduct”; there must be “a showing of an evil intent deserving of punishment or something in the nature of special ill-will or wanton disregard of duty or gross or outrageous conduct.” Willful and wanton means “the intentional doing of an act … in reckless disregard of the consequences … that a reasonable person would know … would, in a high degree of probability, result in harm to another” — and it “must be more than mere mistake … and more than mere thoughtlessness or inadvertence” (Verschoor). ⚠ Wyo. Const. art. 10, § 4(a): “No law shall be enacted limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the injury or death of any person.” THAT IS A STRUCTURAL BAR, NOT A POLICY CHOICE THE LEGISLATURE COULD REVERSE. The LSO’s own 2024 tort-reform memorandum records that a 2004 constitutional amendment to cap noneconomic damages “was ultimately rejected at the general election.”
🧾
Adjuster personal liability — no controlling authority, and we are not inferring one
No Wyoming Supreme Court or Wyoming federal decision addressing whether an individual adjuster is personally liable for bad faith was located. Here is the surrounding structure, which is all the primary sources support:
• Herrig: the duty runs only from the insurer to the insured, and arises from the contract and the “special relationship” (Cathcart). An adjuster is not a party to it.
• § 26-15-124(c) runs against “any insurance company” — not adjusters.
• § 26-13-124 is broader — “a person”, and § 26-1-102(a)(xx) names “adjuster” — but it creates no private right of action, and Herrig bars third-party claimants.
• § 26-9-219 is purely regulatory. No private cause of action, no civil liability provision. Enforcement runs to the Commissioner.
• Peterson, 2022 WY 54 holds a third-party administrator that “acts sufficiently like the insurer” owes the duty “as if it were the insurer” — that is about ENTITIES standing in the carrier’s shoes, not individual employees. Do not stretch it.
⚠ HONEST LIMIT: the place this question normally surfaces is federal removal and fraudulent-joinder practice — and that line could not be searched, because CourtListener and Google Scholar are BOTH robots-blocked. A commercial citator pass on District of Wyoming decisions is the cheapest remaining risk reduction here.
• Herrig: the duty runs only from the insurer to the insured, and arises from the contract and the “special relationship” (Cathcart). An adjuster is not a party to it.
• § 26-15-124(c) runs against “any insurance company” — not adjusters.
• § 26-13-124 is broader — “a person”, and § 26-1-102(a)(xx) names “adjuster” — but it creates no private right of action, and Herrig bars third-party claimants.
• § 26-9-219 is purely regulatory. No private cause of action, no civil liability provision. Enforcement runs to the Commissioner.
• Peterson, 2022 WY 54 holds a third-party administrator that “acts sufficiently like the insurer” owes the duty “as if it were the insurer” — that is about ENTITIES standing in the carrier’s shoes, not individual employees. Do not stretch it.
⚠ HONEST LIMIT: the place this question normally surfaces is federal removal and fraudulent-joinder practice — and that line could not be searched, because CourtListener and Google Scholar are BOTH robots-blocked. A commercial citator pass on District of Wyoming decisions is the cheapest remaining risk reduction here.
Remedies STACK — and how far the overruling check actually reached§ 26-15-124(c) is cumulative, not exclusive. McCullough: “Clearly, the Wyoming statutes, W.S. 26-15-124(c) and 26-13-124, and the entire insurance code … do not provide the same scope of remedies as found in the good faith and fair dealing independent tort remedy.” Limitations: contract on a policy 10 years (§ 1-3-105(a)(i)); bad faith tort 4 years (§ 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C)) — a statutory application, not a holding, and the ACCRUAL rule is unresearched.
⚠ NO TRUE CITATOR PASS WAS RUN. CourtListener and Google Scholar are both ROBOTS-BLOCKED. vLex reports McCullough as “Cited in (146)” with no negative flag — but only 4 of 146 were visible. What actually carries the conclusion is better than a citator: the Wyoming Supreme Court APPLIED McCullough by name in 2021 and 2022, verified against the court’s own PDFs. ⚠ And free citation fields proved unreliable for Wyoming — FindLaw reported Peterson as “2022 WY 52, 500 P.3d 1”; the court’s own PDF says 2022 WY 54. Use
⚠ NO TRUE CITATOR PASS WAS RUN. CourtListener and Google Scholar are both ROBOTS-BLOCKED. vLex reports McCullough as “Cited in (146)” with no negative flag — but only 4 of 146 were visible. What actually carries the conclusion is better than a citator: the Wyoming Supreme Court APPLIED McCullough by name in 2021 and 2022, verified against the court’s own PDFs. ⚠ And free citation fields proved unreliable for Wyoming — FindLaw reported Peterson as “2022 WY 52, 500 P.3d 1”; the court’s own PDF says 2022 WY 54. Use
documents.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions/ and treat aggregator citations as leads.
One regulation rewritten in July 2025, one statute everyone misreads, and one deadline that will cost you money.
The roof rule now turns on facets. The 75% total-loss figure applies only when no insurer is involved. And you owe the state fifteen days’ notice before settling.
The roof rule now turns on facets. The 75% total-loss figure applies only when no insurer is involved. And you owe the state fifteen days’ notice before settling.
🧾
The roof regulation was rewritten on 31 July 2025 — and most sources still carry the old text
How to tell in one second whether your source is current: the old rule said “SLOPE.” The current rule says “FACET.” If you are reading anything that says “a full slope of the roof,” you are reading the pre-August-2025 rule.
§ 26-2(b): “‘Facet’ means one continuous side of a roof that has many sides.”
§ 26-3(a) — brand new, no predecessor: “If an insured loss causes damage to all facets of the roof of a covered property, the entire roof shall be replaced.” Obsolescence is irrelevant to (a) — it triggers on extent of damage alone.
§ 26-3(b): unless the insured consents in advance, where the product is obsolete and there is damage to one or more facets but not the entire roof, “it shall be construed that the full roof has been damaged.”
§ 26-2(c) now DEFINES obsolete, and it is a two-prong test: “no longer manufactured or available for use, AND for which there is no roofing product of similar like, kind and quality currently available.” The Department’s Statement of Principal Reasons says this refers to the specific product on the property, not the general category — so an adjuster may not say “three-tab asphalt shingles are still made, therefore not obsolete.”
§ 26-2(b): “‘Facet’ means one continuous side of a roof that has many sides.”
§ 26-3(a) — brand new, no predecessor: “If an insured loss causes damage to all facets of the roof of a covered property, the entire roof shall be replaced.” Obsolescence is irrelevant to (a) — it triggers on extent of damage alone.
§ 26-3(b): unless the insured consents in advance, where the product is obsolete and there is damage to one or more facets but not the entire roof, “it shall be construed that the full roof has been damaged.”
§ 26-2(c) now DEFINES obsolete, and it is a two-prong test: “no longer manufactured or available for use, AND for which there is no roofing product of similar like, kind and quality currently available.” The Department’s Statement of Principal Reasons says this refers to the specific product on the property, not the general category — so an adjuster may not say “three-tab asphalt shingles are still made, therefore not obsolete.”
⚠ Photographs alone are an UNREASONABLE INVESTIGATION — and labor depreciation is banned§ 26-3(c)(i): investigation “may include photographic documentation of the roofing material, but photographic documentation of the roofing product in and of itself is insufficient to meet the requirement of a reasonable investigation required by Wyo. Stat. 26-13-124.” The chapter’s new authority section cites § 26-13-124 expressly — the superseded version cited § 26-15-113 instead. THAT CHANGE IS WHAT GIVES THIS RULE TEETH: photo-only roof adjusting is now chargeable as an unfair claims settlement practice.
§ 26-3(c)(ii): “No insurer shall depreciate the cost of labor associated with the installation and tear-off of roofing products when adjusting a roofing claim.” Wyoming reaches the anti-labor-depreciation result BY REGULATION, where most states got there through years of litigation over what “actual cash value” means. Note it covers TEAR-OFF — pure labor, and the line most commonly depreciated. And note it is limited to ROOFING claims: nothing resolves labor depreciation for siding, interiors or anything else. The leading national 50-state labor-depreciation survey has no Wyoming entry — confirming there is no case law. The rule is the entire answer.
§ 26-3(c)(ii): “No insurer shall depreciate the cost of labor associated with the installation and tear-off of roofing products when adjusting a roofing claim.” Wyoming reaches the anti-labor-depreciation result BY REGULATION, where most states got there through years of litigation over what “actual cash value” means. Note it covers TEAR-OFF — pure labor, and the line most commonly depreciated. And note it is limited to ROOFING claims: nothing resolves labor depreciation for siding, interiors or anything else. The leading national 50-state labor-depreciation survey has no Wyoming entry — confirming there is no case law. The rule is the entire answer.
The consent hatch — four disclosures, all of them conditions of VALIDITY§ 26-4(a): where the product is obsolete, a different product may be used on damaged facets “if the insured consents in writing IN ADVANCE” and “to the insured’s satisfaction” — but that consent “shall only be valid so long as the insurer … fully disclosed any known effect of the repair or replacement on underwriting standards, on value of the property, on future insurability, and on any existing roof warranty.” ALL FOUR. Miss one and the consent is invalid, which puts you back under § 26-3(b)’s deeming rule. Then § 26-4(b): retain it not less than FIVE YEARS and produce it to the Commissioner on request. ⚠ Scope limits: ROOFS only · DWELLINGS only · HOMEOWNERS’ policies only. Siding, windows, interior finishes and all commercial property are outside ch. 26 entirely. And note ch. 26 is a DEEMING rule, not a matching statute — the trigger is obsolescence of the specific product, NOT appearance. An aesthetic mismatch with a still-available product does not trigger it.
| Automobile | Wyoming |
|---|---|
| Liability minimums — § 31-9-405(b)(ii) | 25 / 50 / 20 — the property limb is $20,000, not $25,000 |
| PIP · medical payments · towing | NONE mandatory — a pure tort state, no no-fault act |
| UM minimum | 25/50 bodily injury ONLY — no UM property damage mandate |
| UIM statute | DOES NOT EXIST (Broderick, 2012 WY 22) |
| UM anti-offset — Rule § 23-3(a) | BIDIRECTIONAL since 2025 — “shall not reduce or be reduced by” |
| Workers’ comp offset against UM | BARRED — Rule § 23-3(b) |
| Anti-stacking clauses | Enforced only if clear and unambiguous in lay terms (Aaron) |
| Comparative bar — § 1-1-109(b) | “not more than fifty percent” — exactly 50% STILL RECOVERS |
| Joint and several liability | ABOLISHED — several only, § 1-1-109(e) |
| Non-party fault | Allocable — “whether or not the actor is a party to the litigation” |
UIM in Wyoming is a purely CONTRACTUAL coverage — and that is unusualThe entire Wyoming Uninsured Motorists’ Act is four sections, and § 31-10-101 is a single undesignated paragraph. There is no underinsured prong, no “limits less than” language and no offset language anywhere in ch. 31-10. So the question “is Wyoming’s UIM offset difference-in-limits, add-on, or reduced by payments actually made?” HAS NO STATUTORY ANSWER. In states with a UIM statute you read one sentence of the code. In Wyoming you read the endorsement, every time, and the answer can differ between two carriers writing the same risk. ⚠ And Rule ch. 23 does not help — it has no Purpose and no Applicability section, its reach is fixed solely by the phrase “uninsured motorists coverage,” and Aaron says outright: “there are no regulations governing underinsured motorist endorsements.”
🧾
The 75% total-loss threshold is REAL — and every published chart applies it to the wrong half of the sentence
§ 31-2-107(a), verbatim: “When a motor vehicle is declared a total loss by the insurance company or, in the event an insurance company is not involved in the settlement of the claim, sustains damage in an amount exceeding seventy-five percent (75%) of its actual retail cash value…”
READ THE DISJUNCTIVE.
1. Where an insurer IS involved, the trigger is the insurer’s own total-loss declaration. NO PERCENTAGE APPLIES. There is no statutory threshold constraining an adjuster’s total-loss decision in Wyoming.
2. The 75% applies ONLY “in the event an insurance company is not involved in the settlement of the claim.”
Published charts state it flatly as “Wyoming total loss threshold: 75%” — which misdescribes the statute for EVERY INSURED CLAIM. It is a title-branding rule for uninsured settlements, not a settlement threshold for adjusters.
⚠ AND EVERY CHART OMITS § 31-2-107(d): THE EIGHT-YEAR EXEMPTION. Salvage branding does not apply to vehicles exceeding eight years of service — except that a vehicle previously branded salvage, reconstructed or flood-damaged in any state keeps that brand on all subsequent Wyoming titles regardless of age.
THE METHOD LESSON: in several states a widely published figure turns out not to be in the statute at all. Wyoming’s 75% IS genuinely there — correctly pin-cited — and is still described wrongly. “The number is in the statute” is only half the check. READ WHAT TRIGGERS IT.
READ THE DISJUNCTIVE.
1. Where an insurer IS involved, the trigger is the insurer’s own total-loss declaration. NO PERCENTAGE APPLIES. There is no statutory threshold constraining an adjuster’s total-loss decision in Wyoming.
2. The 75% applies ONLY “in the event an insurance company is not involved in the settlement of the claim.”
Published charts state it flatly as “Wyoming total loss threshold: 75%” — which misdescribes the statute for EVERY INSURED CLAIM. It is a title-branding rule for uninsured settlements, not a settlement threshold for adjusters.
⚠ AND EVERY CHART OMITS § 31-2-107(d): THE EIGHT-YEAR EXEMPTION. Salvage branding does not apply to vehicles exceeding eight years of service — except that a vehicle previously branded salvage, reconstructed or flood-damaged in any state keeps that brand on all subsequent Wyoming titles regardless of age.
THE METHOD LESSON: in several states a widely published figure turns out not to be in the statute at all. Wyoming’s 75% IS genuinely there — correctly pin-cited — and is still described wrongly. “The number is in the statute” is only half the check. READ WHAT TRIGGERS IT.
⚠ Rule ch. 19 — the aftermarket parts CONSENT rule
§ 19-5(a): no insurer shall “accept any estimate or authorize any repair unless the consumer is advised that he or she is not required to accept non-OEM parts … and consents in writing to the use of those parts BEFORE repairs are made”
§ 19-5(b): no price differential may be charged to a consumer who elects OEM
IN PRACTICAL EFFECT AN UNCONSENTED NON-OEM ESTIMATE CONVERTS TO AN OEM ESTIMATE AT THE INSURER’S COST. Materially stronger than most states’ disclosure-only rules
⚠ SCOPE: § 19-2 limits “Part” to the EXTERIOR — “including inner and outer panels” and expressly excluding tires, windshields and windows. Not mechanical, suspension, lighting or glass. § 19-8 points violations at § 26-1-107 — which is how the $1,000/$10,000 tier reaches parts practice
🚫 Rule ch. 24 — “Minimum Coverage” is not a limits rule
§ 24-2 PURPOSE: “to lessen a gap in coverage that exists when the named insured … negligently injures a FELLOW EMPLOYEE” while driving certain vehicles
§ 24-5: a private passenger BI policy may not exclude the named insured from coverage for injury to a fellow employee — but coverage may be excluded for injuries “required to be compensated, under any Workmen’s Compensation Law”
CHAPTER 24 CONTAINS NO DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND SETS NO MINIMUM LIMITS. “Minimum Coverage” means the minimum SCOPE that may not be excluded. DO NOT TEACH IT AS A LIMITS RULE
And notice what it ties together: ch. 24 exists because Wyoming’s workers’ compensation act is compulsory only for extrahazardous employment. The extrahazardous split changes AUTO LIABILITY coverage
| Property · guaranty · fraud — what Wyoming does NOT have | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Standard fire policy | NONE — file-and-approve instead (§ 26-15-110) |
| Valued policy law | NONE — and four neighboring states have one |
| Statutory ACV definition | NONE |
| Statutory floor on suit limitations | NONE — default 10 years; policies commonly shorten to 12 months |
| Appraisal statute · matching · ordinance or law · mold | NONE of the four |
| Anti-steering statute or regulation | NONE |
| Diminished value | UNRESOLVED both ways — no Wyoming appellate authority |
| Fraud warning statement | NONE required, none prescribed |
| Mandatory fraud reporting · fraud bureau · antifraud plan | NONE of the three |
| Guaranty per-claim cap · unearned premium | $300,000 · $7,500 per policy |
| Guaranty claim deductible · net worth exclusion | NEITHER — both NAIC-model features are absent |
| Guaranty filing bar | Earlier of the court’s date or 25 months |
⚠ Two things in this table are about YOU personallyFirst: § 26-31-103(a)(ii)(D) excludes from “covered claim” all “supplementary payment obligations, including but not limited to ADJUSTMENT FEES AND EXPENSES, attorney fees and expenses, court costs, interest and bond premiums.” An independent adjuster holding unpaid invoices from an insolvent carrier is NOT a covered claimant. The guaranty association is not your remedy.
Second: the fraud negatives are proved structurally — by enumerating ch. 13 art. 2 (two sections), all of ch. 13 art. 1, ch. 15’s form-content sections, and every Insurance Department rule chapter — and corroborated by a primary legislative record. The NICB’s July 2024 presentation to the Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Interim Committee lists Wyoming under “No Provision” for fraud statutes, reporting requirements and reporting streams, and states “Wyoming does not have a fraud reporting unit within their division.” ⚠ A carrier writing here will usually still PRINT a fraud warning, because its multistate form requires one elsewhere. NEVER REPRESENT THAT PRINTED WARNING AS A WYOMING LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
Second: the fraud negatives are proved structurally — by enumerating ch. 13 art. 2 (two sections), all of ch. 13 art. 1, ch. 15’s form-content sections, and every Insurance Department rule chapter — and corroborated by a primary legislative record. The NICB’s July 2024 presentation to the Joint Labor, Health and Social Services Interim Committee lists Wyoming under “No Provision” for fraud statutes, reporting requirements and reporting streams, and states “Wyoming does not have a fraud reporting unit within their division.” ⚠ A carrier writing here will usually still PRINT a fraud warning, because its multistate form requires one elsewhere. NEVER REPRESENT THAT PRINTED WARNING AS A WYOMING LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
🧾
§ 27-14-105 — the three things that will cost a liability adjuster real money
Wyoming’s workers’ compensation monopoly is compulsory ONLY for “extrahazardous” employment (§ 27-14-108(a)), so private WC genuinely exists here — but the place a LIABILITY adjuster meets it is subrogation.
The cap — § 27-14-105(a): the state recovers the lesser of benefits paid or ONE-THIRD of gross proceeds, “without regard to the types of damages alleged” — so no allocation argument shrinks it — “reduced pro rata for attorney fees and costs.” There is NO statutory made-whole rule; the one-third gross cap is the substitute mechanism.
⚠ 1. YOU owe the notice. “Before offering settlement to an employee, a third party OR ITS INSURER shall notify the state … and give the state FIFTEEN (15) DAYS … in which to object.” Not the plaintiff’s lawyer. You.
⚠ 2. Failure exposes you to an INDEPENDENT STATE ACTION “for all payments made to and any amount RESERVED for … the employee” — not merely for what the state would have taken from the settlement.
⚠ 3. You REMAIN LIABLE after paying “unless the state through the attorney general signs the release PRIOR TO PAYMENT.” A release signed by the claimant and their counsel does not close your exposure.
§ 27-14-105(d) adds that an attorney who fails to notify “shall be reported to the grievance committee of the Wyoming state bar.” The legislature put a bar-referral clause in a subrogation statute — treat that as a signal about how seriously this section is enforced.
And check § 27-14-104(c): an employer not qualified, or more than 30 days delinquent on premium for the injured worker’s earnings, forfeits exclusive-remedy immunity entirely and can be sued at law. That is what turns a workers’ compensation file into a liability file.
The cap — § 27-14-105(a): the state recovers the lesser of benefits paid or ONE-THIRD of gross proceeds, “without regard to the types of damages alleged” — so no allocation argument shrinks it — “reduced pro rata for attorney fees and costs.” There is NO statutory made-whole rule; the one-third gross cap is the substitute mechanism.
⚠ 1. YOU owe the notice. “Before offering settlement to an employee, a third party OR ITS INSURER shall notify the state … and give the state FIFTEEN (15) DAYS … in which to object.” Not the plaintiff’s lawyer. You.
⚠ 2. Failure exposes you to an INDEPENDENT STATE ACTION “for all payments made to and any amount RESERVED for … the employee” — not merely for what the state would have taken from the settlement.
⚠ 3. You REMAIN LIABLE after paying “unless the state through the attorney general signs the release PRIOR TO PAYMENT.” A release signed by the claimant and their counsel does not close your exposure.
§ 27-14-105(d) adds that an attorney who fails to notify “shall be reported to the grievance committee of the Wyoming state bar.” The legislature put a bar-referral clause in a subrogation statute — treat that as a signal about how seriously this section is enforced.
And check § 27-14-104(c): an employer not qualified, or more than 30 days delinquent on premium for the injured worker’s earnings, forfeits exclusive-remedy immunity entirely and can be sued at law. That is what turns a workers’ compensation file into a liability file.
Ten scenarios — each one a place Wyoming departs from the national rule, or from what a confident secondary source will tell you.
Read the fact pattern before the options. Several carry a plausible wrong answer that is simply what most published Wyoming material says.
Read the fact pattern before the options. Several carry a plausible wrong answer that is simply what most published Wyoming material says.
🎯
Top Exam Tips — Wyoming Adjuster Regulations
1. SALARIED INSURER EMPLOYEES NEED THE LICENSE. There is no staff-adjuster exemption, and § 26-9-204 is a PRODUCER provision — its (a) confines the whole section to the insurance producer license.
2. THREE lines — property, casualty, crop (§ 26-9-219(a)). No WC line, and NOT because of the monopoly fund — § 26-5-106(a)(iii) puts employer-injury obligations inside the casualty line.
3. No adjuster chapter. Article 1 is defunct; Article 2 is captioned “Insurance Producers.” Adjusters are grafted in by § 26-9-219 and § 26-9-231(a) only.
4. Public adjusters are licensed as CONSULTANTS via Rule ch. 18 (spelled adjustor). Exam 47 — 150 q, 2.5 hr. NO bond, NO fee cap, NO contract requirement, NO rescission, NO moratorium.
5. Passing score 70% RAW — “answer 70% of questions correctly” — but the report says only “pass” or “fail.” No adjuster content outline exists, so the scored/pretest split is unpublished.
6. $100 resident / $150 nonresident, and statute and agency AGREE. Late renewal DOUBLES it — $200 / $300 (§ 26-9-207(c)), with a 12-month reinstatement window. $39 fingerprints is a Department figure, not statutory.
7. Office REQUIRED, no home-office proviso. NO records retention period — § 26-9-228(c)’s three years binds producers. Reporting: 30 days, including 30 days after the INITIAL PRETRIAL HEARING.
8. CE 24 hours / 3 ethics, and § 26-9-231(a) NAMES adjusters twice. Nonresident exempt if home-state CE met; fully subject if not licensed at home. The Department’s “no extensions” page contradicts § 26-9-231(e) — the statute wins.
9. § 26-13-124: SEVENTEEN acts, ONE subsection, a FREQUENCY element with no single-act alternative, and ZERO deadlines. You are named via § 26-1-102(a)(xx), with your own $1,000 / $10,000 tier under § 26-1-107(b).
10. § 26-15-124: 45 days — from PROOFS OF LOSS for life/health, from the CLAIM for property and casualty. No exceptions in (b). No self-executing penalty for missing it. (c) gives fees + 10% on an “unreasonable OR without cause” refusal.
11. Caption traps: Rule ch. 33 has no claim clocks; Rule ch. 25 is a Public Records Act rule; Rule ch. 24 has no dollar amounts; § 26-9-204 exempts nobody.
12. Bad faith tort RECOGNIZED (McCullough), test “not fairly debatable,” and Hatch: liability even where the denial WAS debatable. Herrig: the duty runs only insurer→insured. Punitives uncapped — Wyo. Const. art. 10, § 4(a).
13. Roof rule rewritten 31 July 2025: “FACET” replaced “slope” · ALL facets damaged = full replacement · photographs alone are an UNREASONABLE INVESTIGATION · NO labor depreciation on installation AND tear-off · consent needs FOUR disclosures and a 5-year file.
14. Auto 25/50/20 (property limb $20,000) · no PIP or med-pay · NO UIM STATUTE · UM anti-offset bidirectional since 2025 · “not more than 50%” — exactly 50% still recovers · joint and several ABOLISHED · 75% total loss applies ONLY where no insurer is involved, plus an 8-year branding exemption.
15. Guaranty $300,000 · WC full · unearned premium $7,500 · NO deductible · NO net worth exclusion · 25-month bar · and “adjustment fees and expenses” are EXCLUDED. Fraud: flat misdemeanor, NO warning, NO reporting duty, NO bureau.
16. WC compulsory ONLY for EXTRAHAZARDOUS employment · § 27-14-105: 15-day notice owed by the third party OR ITS INSURER, 1/3-of-gross cap, and the AG must sign the release BEFORE payment · § 27-14-104(c): 30 days delinquent forfeits immunity · notice to employer 72 HOURS.
2. THREE lines — property, casualty, crop (§ 26-9-219(a)). No WC line, and NOT because of the monopoly fund — § 26-5-106(a)(iii) puts employer-injury obligations inside the casualty line.
3. No adjuster chapter. Article 1 is defunct; Article 2 is captioned “Insurance Producers.” Adjusters are grafted in by § 26-9-219 and § 26-9-231(a) only.
4. Public adjusters are licensed as CONSULTANTS via Rule ch. 18 (spelled adjustor). Exam 47 — 150 q, 2.5 hr. NO bond, NO fee cap, NO contract requirement, NO rescission, NO moratorium.
5. Passing score 70% RAW — “answer 70% of questions correctly” — but the report says only “pass” or “fail.” No adjuster content outline exists, so the scored/pretest split is unpublished.
6. $100 resident / $150 nonresident, and statute and agency AGREE. Late renewal DOUBLES it — $200 / $300 (§ 26-9-207(c)), with a 12-month reinstatement window. $39 fingerprints is a Department figure, not statutory.
7. Office REQUIRED, no home-office proviso. NO records retention period — § 26-9-228(c)’s three years binds producers. Reporting: 30 days, including 30 days after the INITIAL PRETRIAL HEARING.
8. CE 24 hours / 3 ethics, and § 26-9-231(a) NAMES adjusters twice. Nonresident exempt if home-state CE met; fully subject if not licensed at home. The Department’s “no extensions” page contradicts § 26-9-231(e) — the statute wins.
9. § 26-13-124: SEVENTEEN acts, ONE subsection, a FREQUENCY element with no single-act alternative, and ZERO deadlines. You are named via § 26-1-102(a)(xx), with your own $1,000 / $10,000 tier under § 26-1-107(b).
10. § 26-15-124: 45 days — from PROOFS OF LOSS for life/health, from the CLAIM for property and casualty. No exceptions in (b). No self-executing penalty for missing it. (c) gives fees + 10% on an “unreasonable OR without cause” refusal.
11. Caption traps: Rule ch. 33 has no claim clocks; Rule ch. 25 is a Public Records Act rule; Rule ch. 24 has no dollar amounts; § 26-9-204 exempts nobody.
12. Bad faith tort RECOGNIZED (McCullough), test “not fairly debatable,” and Hatch: liability even where the denial WAS debatable. Herrig: the duty runs only insurer→insured. Punitives uncapped — Wyo. Const. art. 10, § 4(a).
13. Roof rule rewritten 31 July 2025: “FACET” replaced “slope” · ALL facets damaged = full replacement · photographs alone are an UNREASONABLE INVESTIGATION · NO labor depreciation on installation AND tear-off · consent needs FOUR disclosures and a 5-year file.
14. Auto 25/50/20 (property limb $20,000) · no PIP or med-pay · NO UIM STATUTE · UM anti-offset bidirectional since 2025 · “not more than 50%” — exactly 50% still recovers · joint and several ABOLISHED · 75% total loss applies ONLY where no insurer is involved, plus an 8-year branding exemption.
15. Guaranty $300,000 · WC full · unearned premium $7,500 · NO deductible · NO net worth exclusion · 25-month bar · and “adjustment fees and expenses” are EXCLUDED. Fraud: flat misdemeanor, NO warning, NO reporting duty, NO bureau.
16. WC compulsory ONLY for EXTRAHAZARDOUS employment · § 27-14-105: 15-day notice owed by the third party OR ITS INSURER, 1/3-of-gross cap, and the AG must sign the release BEFORE payment · § 27-14-104(c): 30 days delinquent forfeits immunity · notice to employer 72 HOURS.
§ 26-9-219(c)
The licensing trigger — a license is required of an adjuster acting in this state “on behalf of an insurer.” The § 26-1-102(a)(i) DEFINITION is silent about whom you act for. Different tests.
No staff-adjuster exemption
Salaried insurer employees need the Wyoming license. § 26-9-219(b)(iii) contemplates a licensee who is “a full-time salaried employee of a licensed adjuster.”
§ 26-9-204
Captioned “Exceptions to Licensing” and exempting insurer personnel “engaged in the handling of claims” — but (a) confines the whole section to the INSURANCE PRODUCER license. NOT an adjuster exemption.
§ 26-5-106(a)(iii)
Wyoming’s casualty definition includes “the obligations … assumed by employers under law for death, disablement or injury of employees.” WC risk is INSIDE the casualty line.
“Public adjustor”
The spelling in Rule ch. 18 § 18-2(a)(i) — the only authority routing public adjusters into the consultant license. The phrase “public adjuster” appears nowhere in Title 26.
The five missing protections
No bond · no fee cap · no written-contract requirement · no rescission right · no solicitation moratorium. Proved by enumerating four sources exhaustively.
Exam 17 · 31 · 47
100 q / 2 hr P&C Adjuster · 60 q / 1 hr Crop · 150 q / 2.5 hr P&C Consultant. All $96. No adjuster content outline exists.
70% RAW, pass or fail
“You need to answer 70% of questions correctly” — and “a score report marked ‘pass’ or ‘fail’.” The words “scaled” and “raw score” appear nowhere in the handbook.
§ 26-9-207(c)
Late renewal: “a penalty equal to the amount of the continuation fee.” $200 resident, $300 nonresident — statute-derived; the Department does not publish it. 12-month window.
§ 26-9-219(b)(v)
Office accessible to the public, and the records duty — with NO retention period and, unlike consultants, no home-office proviso.
§ 26-9-228(c)
The three-year records rule. It binds “the insurance producer.” NOT adjusters. § 26-9-228(b) is repealed.
§ 26-9-231(a)
The CE section that names adjusters twice in its operative sentence. 24 hours / 3 ethics per two-year period. (f): nonresidents exempt if home-state CE met; fully subject if not licensed at home.
§ 26-9-231(e) vs the CE page
Statute permits up to a one-year extension for good cause; the Department’s page says “No extensions are granted for any reason.” The statute governs.
Designated Home State
§ 26-9-219(d) — available only if your home state “does not license adjusters” for the line sought. The 31-jurisdiction list is a list of states that DO license adjusters. § 26-9-215 does not reach adjusters.
§ 26-1-102(a)(xx)
Defines “person” to include “adjuster” — how § 26-13-124 reaches you. The chapter 9 carve-out for attorneys and placing agents does NOT travel to chapter 13.
§ 26-1-107(b)
The individual adjuster penalty tier: $1,000 per offense, $10,000 aggregate per year, against $5,000 and $50,000 for entities. Structural proof the legislature contemplated adjuster-level enforcement.
§ 26-13-124
Seventeen acts. One subsection. A frequency element with NO single-act alternative. ZERO numeric deadlines. The chapeau’s grammar is ambiguous and no Wyoming case construes it.
§ 26-15-124(a) vs (b)
(a) life/accident/health, from “the proofs of loss and supporting evidence.” (b) property/casualty, from “the CLAIM and supporting bills” — earlier, and with no exception clauses.
§ 26-15-124(c)
Attorney’s fee and 10% per year on a refusal to pay that is “unreasonable OR without cause.” Not keyed to the 45-day deadline — there is no self-executing penalty for a bare miss.
Rule ch. 33
“Unfair Trade Practices Regulation.” Six sections, NO claim clocks. Its only number — § 33-5’s 20 calendar days — runs to the Department.
Rule ch. 25
“Information Practices.” A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT rule about the Department’s own files. “Personnel Records” is the tell. Zero claim-handling duties.
McCullough, 789 P.2d 855 (Wyo. 1990)
Recognizes the independent first-party bad faith tort. Test: “whether the validity of the denied claim was not fairly debatable” — an objective standard.
Hatch, 842 P.2d 1089 (Wyo. 1992)
An insurer “cannot properly go beyond a reasonable denial … and engage in unreasonable or unfair behavior to gain an unfair advantage.” Liability even where the denial was fairly debatable.
Herrig, 844 P.2d 487 (Wyo. 1992)
“The duty of good faith and fair dealing runs only from the insurer to the insured.” A third-party claimant has NO direct action.
Gainsco, 2002 WY 122
Third-party bad faith: “whether a prudent insurer would have accepted the settlement offer if it alone were to be liable for the entire judgment.” Requires an excess judgment; the claim is the insured’s and assignable.
Peterson, 2022 WY 54
A third-party administrator that “acts sufficiently like the insurer” owes the duty “as if it were the insurer.” Entities in the carrier’s shoes — not individual employees.
Wyo. Const. art. 10, § 4(a)
“No law shall be enacted limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the injury or death of any person.” No punitive cap is possible without amending the constitution.
“Facet”
Rule § 26-2(b): “one continuous side of a roof that has many sides.” It replaced “slope” on 31 July 2025. If your source says “slope,” it is out of date.
Rule § 26-3(a) and (c)
All facets damaged = the entire roof shall be replaced. Photographs alone are “insufficient to meet the requirement of a reasonable investigation required by Wyo. Stat. 26-13-124.” No depreciation of labor — installation AND tear-off.
Rule § 26-4(a)
The consent hatch: advance written consent, valid only on full disclosure of effects on underwriting standards, property value, future insurability and any existing roof warranty. Retain five years.
25/50/20
§ 31-9-405(b)(ii). The property damage limb is $20,000. No PIP, no mandatory med-pay, no mandatory towing. The compulsory hook, § 31-4-103, sits in chapter 4.
No UIM statute
Broderick, 2012 WY 22. UIM in Wyoming is purely contractual — trigger, offset and stacking all come from the endorsement. Rule ch. 23 does not reach UIM.
Rule § 23-3(a)
As amended in 2025, UM benefits “shall not reduce or be reduced by” payments under any other policy section. Bidirectional. § 23-3(b): no workers’ compensation offset against UM.
“Not more than fifty percent”
§ 1-1-109(b). A claimant at exactly 50% STILL RECOVERS, reduced by half; the bar bites at 50.01%. Neither the “50% bar” nor the “51% bar” label is in the statute.
§ 1-1-109(e)
“Each defendant is liable only to the extent of that defendant’s proportion of the total fault.” Joint and several liability is ABOLISHED — and non-party fault is allocable.
§ 31-2-107(a)
Disjunctive. The insurer’s own declaration where an insurer is involved; the 75% only “in the event an insurance company is not involved.” (d): an EIGHT-YEAR branding exemption.
Rule § 19-5
Aftermarket parts: written consent BEFORE repairs, and no price differential if the consumer elects OEM. § 19-2 limits “Part” to the EXTERIOR, excluding tires, windshields and windows.
Rule ch. 24
“Minimum Coverage” means the minimum SCOPE that may not be excluded. A FELLOW-EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION PROHIBITION with no dollar amounts.
§ 26-35-202(a)(ii)
Cancellation for material misrepresentation — the one ground expressly excluded from § 26-35-202(b)’s notice periods, and therefore carrying no statutory notice at all.
§ 26-35-101
Notice is “deemed given when deposited”, “proof of mailing shall be sufficient”, and it must go to the insured AND THE AGENT.
§ 26-31-103(a)(ii)(D)
“Covered claim” excludes “adjustment fees and expenses.” An adjuster’s unpaid invoices from an insolvent carrier are NOT covered.
§ 26-13-202
The fraud penalty section — and its second clause, “or as provided by any other applicable law which provides a GREATER PENALTY.” That is where the felony tiers come from: theft at $1,000, WC fraud at $500.
§ 26-2-131(b)
The only fraud-adjacent immunity. Good faith AND without fraudulent intent AND pursuant to an examination or a Title 6 criminal investigation. Not a general reporting immunity.
“Extrahazardous employment”
§ 27-14-108(a). Workers’ compensation is compulsory ONLY for these NAICS-keyed classifications. Everyone else may elect in under (j), all-or-nothing. Private WC exists for exempt employers.
§ 27-14-105(b)
15 days’ pre-settlement notice owed by “a third party OR ITS INSURER”; failure permits an independent state action for everything paid AND reserved; and the payer remains liable unless the ATTORNEY GENERAL signs the release before payment.
§ 27-14-105(a)
Reimbursement capped at one-third of gross proceeds, “without regard to the types of damages alleged,” reduced pro rata for attorney fees. No statutory made-whole rule.
§ 27-14-104(c)
An employer not qualified, or more than 30 days delinquent on premium, forfeits exclusive-remedy immunity and can be sued at law. Co-employee immunity is lost only on intentional acts.
§ 27-14-802
The statewide average monthly wage is re-estimated EACH QUARTER, and a claim keeps its injury-quarter figure for life. The figures are not monotonic — they fall as well as rise.
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.
🧭
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 →