Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 60A.954 (2026)

Insurance Antifraud Plan

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Establishment.

An insurer shall institute, implement, and maintain an antifraud plan. For the purpose of this section, the term insurer does not include reinsurers, the Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Association, self-insurers, and excess insurers. Within 30 days after instituting or materially modifying an antifraud plan, the insurer shall notify the commissioner in writing. The notice must include the name of the person responsible for administering the plan. An antifraud plan shall establish procedures to:

(1) prevent insurance fraud, including: internal fraud involving the insurer's officers, employees, or agents; fraud resulting from misrepresentations on applications for insurance; and claims fraud;

(2) report insurance fraud to appropriate law enforcement authorities; and

(3) cooperate with the prosecution of insurance fraud cases.

Subd. 2.Review.

The commissioner may review each insurer's antifraud plan to determine whether it complies with the requirements of this section. If the commissioner finds that an insurer's antifraud plan does not comply with the requirements of this section, the commissioner shall disapprove the plan and send a notice of disapproval, along with the reasons for disapproval, to the insurer. An insurer whose antifraud plan has been disapproved by the commissioner shall submit a new plan to the commissioner within 60 days after the plan was disapproved. The commissioner may examine an insurer's procedures to determine whether the insurer is complying with its antifraud plan. The commissioner shall withhold from public inspection any part of an insurer's antifraud plan for so long as the commissioner deems the withholding to be in the public interest. The commissioner may share an insurer's complete antifraud plan with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2021 · leading case: Allstate Ins. Co. v. LINEA LATINA DE ACCIDENTES, INC., 781 F. Supp. 2d 837 (D. Minnesota 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Allstate Ins. Co. v. LINEA LATINA DE ACCIDENTES, INC., 781 F. Supp. 2d 837 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 6× “Section 60A.954 requires an insurer to “institute, implement, and maintain an antifraud plan.”

W. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 781 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The requirement of examination under oath arises from the contract and not from rules of arbitration. Furthermore, the rules of arbitration apply when arbitration has been properly commenced.”

Vang v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (C.D. Ill. 2021). “But is it discriminatory for State Farm to challenge providers who may be exploiting immigrants for financial gain where it has identified such scenario as a fraud trend? See also Minn. Stat. § 60A.954 (requiring insurers to implement and maintain procedures to prevent insurance…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.