Washington state is adopting an auto claims rule that Solera Holdings previously described as 'not feasible' to comply with.
The rules requiring insurers to show the evidence behind certain reductions to total-loss vehicle payments will come into effect in October. During hearings in April, the rules were opposed by Diane Zeni, director of government and regulatory affairs at Solera, a vehicle claims technology company based in Westlake, Texas. Its Audatex division provides computerized vehicle valuation services used by insurers.
She spoke during an April 22 public hearing held by the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC).
The OIC’s official hearing summary says Zeni opposed the total-loss provision because Solera could not feasibly provide the required information to insurers.
The rule takes effect Oct. 18. It applies when an insurer uses a computerized source to determine the actual cash value of a vehicle that has been written off.
Insurers can calculate that value by comparing the damaged vehicle with similar vehicles advertised for sale. Differences in mileage, equipment and condition can increase or reduce the settlement.
Under the final rule, an insurer must provide photographs and documents if the condition assigned to a comparable vehicle has reduced the claimant’s payment and the claimant asks for the evidence.
Zeni’s detailed position appears in three written submissions she signed during the rulemaking process. The OIC’s hearing summary is not a verbatim transcript.
Her submissions explain that the disagreement involves a basic feature of Audatex’s valuation method: the condition of comparable vehicles is not necessarily established through an individual inspection.
Zeni wrote in an Aug. 8, 2025 submission that Audatex collects hundreds of thousands of vehicle listings from across Washington. The listings are used to calculate a representative average value for a particular year, make and model.
“This average is reflective of a vehicle in typical condition,” Zeni wrote.
She said most comparable vehicles used in the valuations are advertised by licensed dealerships. Audatex therefore treats them as being in average or better condition, she wrote.
Zeni said direct inspection of every comparable vehicle was unnecessary because the condition of the claimant’s vehicle could be adjusted against that average.
The OIC did not accept that position. In its response to public comments, regulatory staff questioned how an insurer could describe a vehicle as comparable if its condition could not be validated.
Zeni offered a further explanation in an Oct. 6 submission. She wrote that dealerships screen vehicles before offering them to retail customers.
“Dealers do not offer vehicles that fail to meet basic safety and cosmetic standards for retail sale,” Zeni wrote. She said other vehicles are moved through wholesale channels.
That claim is central to Solera’s position. Zeni argued that dealership screening provided enough assurance about the general condition of advertised vehicles. The new rule requires evidence when an insurer relies on a specific comparable vehicle’s condition to reduce a payment.
The wording changed substantially before adoption.
The first draft broadly required supporting information showing the condition of comparable vehicles used in computerized valuations. The final version applies only when a condition decision lowers a claimant’s settlement.
It also requires the claimant to ask for the information. The insurer must then provide photographs and documents supporting its condition determination.
Zeni raised another objection in a Feb. 3 submission. She questioned why the added documentation applied to computerized valuations when other permitted valuation methods could use the same comparable vehicles.
“This disparate treatment raises questions as to the purpose and necessity of the proposed requirement,” Zeni wrote.
She also explained what could happen to the source material after a valuation was completed.
Vehicle advertisements may be online for only a short period before the vehicle is sold. The advertisement and its photographs may then be removed or become inaccessible, she wrote.
Preserving the materials indefinitely would increase data storage costs. Obtaining replacement records from private sellers and dealerships would add work for the parties involved, she wrote.
The final rule does not require Audatex or another valuation provider to document every vehicle held in a database. The legal duty falls on the insurer and is triggered only when the condition of a comparable vehicle is used to reduce a payment.
However, the insurer may need information originating with its valuation provider to meet that duty.
Kathleen Lally, associate general counsel at CCC Intelligent Solutions, also spoke against the provision at the April hearing.
CCC is a Chicago-based provider of estimating, valuation and claims software for insurers and collision repair businesses. The hearing summary says Lally also described the requested information as infeasible for her company to provide to insurers.
The new provision forms part of a wider revision of Washington’s minimum claims-handling standards.
An insurer’s investigation cannot rely solely on estimating software, benchmarks or databases. Insurers must respond to repair supplements and final invoices within five business days.
Claimants can also request an in-person inspection when they disagree with the amount of a loss determined through a virtual inspection.
The total-loss provision ultimately adopted is narrower than the version Zeni addressed in her first submission. It nevertheless rejects her request to remove the documentation requirement.
Beginning Oct. 18, an insurer will have to produce photographs and documents when the condition assigned to a comparable vehicle has reduced a total-loss payment and the claimant asks to see the evidence.
