| Standard
Fire Policy vs. Non-Standard Fire Policy States
A chart
that displays the Standard Fire Policy (SFP) v. Non-Standard
Fire Policy (NSFP) States and Inland Marine exemptions from
SFP requirements is displayed below. In
most states where SFP statutes apply, such statutes do not apply
to Inland Marine policies.
Direct Questions To:
Larris Larsen, CPCU, ACP
Assistant Vice President, Compliance
larrisl@AAISonline.com
Updated 3/5/08
| STATE |
SFP |
NON-SFP |
| Alabama |
|
X |
| Alaska |
|
X |
| Arizona |
X; IM
is exempt HB 2192, eff 7/16/05, amended the SFP statute to allow
terrorism to be excluded from a commercial policy. Exemption
does not apply to any policy covering a 1 to 4 family
residential property. |
|
| Arkansas |
|
X |
| California |
X; Per CDI
position communicated to AAIS on 7/26/06, IM is NOT
exempt |
|
| Colorado |
|
X |
| Connecticut |
X; IM
is exempt HB 5200 eff. 7/1/04 until expiration of federal TRIA
statute, allows exclusion of fire and other perils caused
by certified acts of terrorism. |
|
| Delaware |
|
X |
| DC |
|
X |
| Florida |
|
X |
| Georgia |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| Hawaii |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| Idaho |
X, IM is exempt
Eff 4/1/05, HB 160 amended
SFP statute to allow certified acts of terrorism to
be excluded from a commercial policy. Eff 7/1/08, H547
amended the definition of certified act of terrorism
to include domestic terrorism. |
|
| Illinois |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| Indiana |
|
X |
| Iowa |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| Kansas |
|
X |
| Kentucky |
|
X |
| Louisiana |
X Eff. 8/15/03, HB 1788 amended the SFP statute to allow
terrorism to be excluded from a commercial policy. |
|
| Maine |
X |
|
| Maryland |
|
X |
| Massachusetts |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| Michigan |
X, IM
is exempt Eff. 5/29/03, HB 4432 amended the SFP statute to allow
terrorism to be excluded from a commercial policy. |
|
| Minnesota |
X; IM
is exempt* Eff. 04/09/03, MN HB 267 amended the SFP
statute to allow the exclusion of fire-following
coverage in terrorism endorsements. |
|
| Mississippi |
|
X |
| Missouri |
X |
|
| Montana |
|
X |
| Nebraska |
X; IM
is exempt Effective 01/01/04, LB 216 exempts commercial lines
from the provisions of the SFP statute (LB 216 pertains
to commercial lines other than IM that were previously
subject to SFP requirements). |
|
| Nevada |
|
X |
| New Hampshire |
X Eff. 1/1/04, HB 460 adds terrorism as an excluded peril
to the SFP statute. |
|
| New Jersey |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| New Mexico |
|
X |
| New York |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| North Carolina |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| North Dakota |
X; IM
is exempt Eff 3/25/05, SB 2094 amends the SFP statute to allow
terrorism to be excluded from a commercial policy. |
|
| Ohio |
|
X |
| Oklahoma |
X IM
is exempt Eff. 11/1/03, HB 1273 allows the insurance commissioner
to approve fire policy language that does not follow
the SFP. |
|
| Oregon |
X |
|
| Pennsylvania |
X; IM
is exempt*
SB 1007 eff. 9/5/06 amended SFP
statute to allow terrorism to be excluded from a commercial
policy. |
|
| Puerto Rico |
|
X |
| Rhode Island |
X Eff. 6/11/04, S 3057 provides an exemption from SFP
for Commercial Special Risks. Included are large insureds
subject to specific size requirements and inland marine
risks. |
|
| South Carolina |
|
X |
| South Dakota |
|
X |
| Tennessee |
|
X |
| Texas |
|
X |
| Utah |
|
X |
| Vermont |
|
X |
| Virginia |
X; per
VA BOI interpretation, IM is not subject to SFP requirements.
Eff. 7/01/03, HB 2606 permits the exclusion of fire-following
coverage from certified terrorism endorsements (HB 2606
pertains to lines of insurance other than inland marine
subject to SFP requirements). |
|
| Washington |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| West Virginia |
X; IM
is exempt |
|
| Wisconsin |
X |
|
| Wyoming |
|
X |
* The IM exemption from SFP requirements in MN does not apply
to policies covering any real property; i.e., Builders' Risk.
See chart for statutory exception for terrorism.
** The IM exemption from SFP requirements in PA does not
apply to policies covering any real property; i.e., Builders'
Risk. See chart for statutory exception for terrorism.
Top
|