Get the fair value you deserve for your totaled vehicle in Wyoming

Wyoming regulates first-party automobile total losses through three layered authorities: the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices statute at Wyo. Stat. § 26-13-124, the prompt-payment and attorney-fee statute at § 26-15-124, and the salvage / total-loss definition at § 31-2-106(v). Under Wyo. Stat. § 26-13-124(a), a person engages in an unfair method of competition and an 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: (i) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions; (iv) refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information; (v) failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed; (vi) not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear; (vii) compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds; and (xiv) failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. The Wyoming Supreme Court held in Herrig v. Herrig, 844 P.2d 487 (Wyo. 1992), that § 26-13-124 itself does not create a private right of action (and Herrig also held that § 26-15-124 does not create a private cause of action in the third-party context). However, the conduct proscribed by § 26-13-124 is regularly admitted as evidence supporting common-law first-party bad-faith claims. The Wyoming Supreme Court recognized first-party bad faith as an independent tort in McCullough v. Golden Rule Insurance Co., 789 P.2d 855 (Wyo. 1990) — and McCullough adopted an OBJECTIVE "fairly debatable" standard, expressly rejecting the subjective knowledge / reckless-disregard prong of Anderson v. Continental's two-part test. Under McCullough, the question is whether, judged objectively, the validity of the denied claim was "fairly debatable" — i.e., whether a reasonable insurer under the circumstances would have denied or delayed payment. A "fairly debatable" denial defeats the tort claim; an objectively unreasonable denial supports it. Wyo. Stat. § 26-15-124 supplies the most powerful direct remedy: subsection (b) requires that "claims for benefits under a property or casualty insurance policy shall be rejected or accepted and paid by the insurer or its agent designated to receive those claims within forty-five (45) days after receipt of the claim and supporting bills." Subsection (c) provides that "in any actions or proceedings commenced against any insurance company on any insurance policy or certificate of any type or kind of insurance ... if it is determined that the company refuses to pay the full amount of a loss covered by the policy and that the refusal is unreasonable or without cause, any court in which judgment is rendered for a claimant may also award a reasonable sum as an attorney's fee and interest at ten percent (10%) per year." Wyo. Stat. § 31-2-106(a)(v) defines a "salvage vehicle" as one declared a total loss by an insurance company or, in the absence of insurance settlement, one where the cost of parts and labor to rebuild the motor vehicle to its pre-accident condition exceeds 75% of its actual retail cash value. Wyoming does not impose a separate licensing requirement on a policyholder's appraiser invoked under the policy's appraisal clause.