Mandatory-Offer and Mandatory-Inclusion Requirements for Residential Property Coverages: A 50-State and D.C. Survey

This survey identifies, for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, where statute or regulation requires a residential property insurer to offer a coverage, include a coverage (sometimes with a written-rejection escape), or make a coverage available before issuing or renewing a homeowners or dwelling policy. It covers replacement cost and extended/guaranteed replacement cost, ordinance-or-law (building-code-upgrade) coverage, earthquake, sinkhole and catastrophic ground cover collapse, mine subsidence, manufactured-home replacement cost, heating-oil release coverage, and the hurricane/wind deductible-option offer. It does not cover flood (a federally driven line with no state coverage-offer mandate identified), commercial lines, the mechanics of valued-policy-law payouts except as context, or the dozens of post-loss claim-handling and matching rules that govern how a coverage pays once it is in force. Every mandate here is part of a state's admitted insurance code; whether each also reaches surplus-lines (non-admitted) carriers is treated in its own section below.

How to read the four obligations

The obligations are not interchangeable, and conflating them is where coverage opinions go wrong. Include means the coverage is written into the policy by operation of law, sometimes subject to a conclusive written rejection. Offer means the insurer must put a specific coverage in front of the applicant, usually with a signed-rejection mechanic, but silence does not add the coverage. Make available is the weakest affirmative duty: the coverage must be obtainable for an additional premium if the insured asks, with no push obligation. Regulate-if-sold is not a mandate at all: the state dictates how a coverage pays once an insurer chooses to sell it (depreciation holdback, matching, code-compliance content), but never requires the offer. Most states sit in the last bucket for most coverages. The deadlines and rejection formalities differ by coverage even within one state, so the operative question is always "which obligation, on which coverage, triggered by which event."

The short version

Three states drive almost all of the replacement cost and ordinance-or-law mandates. Florida requires both to be offered and deems 25% ordinance-or-law coverage included absent written rejection. Colorado requires an offer of extended replacement cost and ordinance-or-law at stated minimums. California mandates inclusion of building-code-upgrade coverage.

Once the lens widens past those two coverages, several more states carry real mandates. California mandates an earthquake offer under Ins. Code § 10081. Florida mandates catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage and a sinkhole-coverage availability under § 627.706, a hurricane deductible-option offer under § 627.701, and windstorm coverage itself by default under § 627.712. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia mandate mine-subsidence coverage (by inclusion, offer, or make-available) in designated counties. Nevada mandates a replacement cost offer on manufactured and mobile homes. South Carolina bars excluding wind and hail on most property policies outside its coastal wind pool, so the coverage is included by default (§ 38-75-1230). Massachusetts requires homeowners insurers to make heating-oil release coverage available (M.G.L. c. 175 § 4D). The map is wider and more textured than a replacement-cost-and-ordinance-or-law survey can show.

Replacement cost and extended replacement cost

No state imposes a freestanding duty to offer replacement cost on a site-built dwelling. The two affirmative duties on site-built dwellings ride on the ordinance-or-law statutes (Nevada's narrow manufactured-home offer is separate). Fla. Stat. § 627.7011(1) requires the insurer, before issuing a homeowner's policy, to offer replacement cost coverage (with and without law-and-ordinance costs), and § 627.7011(3) fixes the loss-payment mechanics: initial payment of at least actual cash value less deductible, the remainder as work is performed, and on a total loss, payment of the replacement cost coverage with no depreciation holdback under § 627.702. Colorado's C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8(6)(a) requires the insurer, before issuing or renewing a replacement-cost homeowner's policy whose dwelling limit meets or exceeds estimated replacement cost, to offer extended replacement cost of at least 50% of the dwelling limit. HB23-1174, the Homeowner's Insurance Underinsurance Act of 2023 (signed May 12, 2023, generally effective Aug. 7, 2023, with § 10-4-110.8(8) effective Jan. 1, 2025), raised the prior 10%/20% floors to 20%/50%. The Colorado offer drops away if the policy already carries guaranteed replacement cost, inflation protection, extended replacement cost, or law-and-ordinance in equal or greater amounts.

California does not mandate a replacement cost offer, but it heavily regulates the measure of indemnity once replacement cost is sold (Ins. Code § 2051.5; 10 CCR § 2695.9) and, after a declared disaster, allows underinsured total-loss policyholders to combine dwelling and other-structures limits and recover full replacement cost without rebuilding (Ins. Code § 10103.7, added by SB 894 in 2018 after the 2017 wildfires). Minnesota is the cleanest regulate-if-sold example: Minn. Stat. § 65A.10, subd. 1 provides that "where an insurer offers replacement cost insurance," the coverage must fund repair or rebuild to the minimum code required by state or local authorities, conditioning content on the offer rather than compelling it, and it requires the declarations page to read "nonreplacement cost" when personal-property replacement cost is not provided. Nevada is the lone state with a dwelling-side replacement cost offer, but it is narrow: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 691A.020 requires an offer of replacement cost on manufactured and mobile homes 15 years old or newer, not on site-built dwellings generally.

Watch California. SB 876 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, would repeal and replace Ins. Code § 10103.2 to convert today's extended-replacement-cost disclosure into a true offer mandate of at least 50% above policy limits, and would touch a string of other sections (including §§ 2051, 2051.5, 10102, 10103, 10103.7). If enacted, California joins Florida and Colorado as an extended-RCV offer state. Confirm current status and any enrolled text before relying on it. As of June 21, 2026, SB 876 had passed the California Senate (on May 27, 2026, by a 30-9 vote) and was pending in the Assembly; it had not been chaptered, so California is not yet an extended-replacement-cost offer state.

Ordinance-or-law (building-code-upgrade) coverage

Only three jurisdictions impose an explicit ordinance-or-law mandate, and they do it three different ways. Florida is the most protective: under § 627.7011(1) the insurer must offer law-and-ordinance coverage limited to 25% or 50% of the dwelling limit as the policyholder selects, and must offer the 50% option; under § 627.7011(2), absent a signed written refusal that creates a conclusive presumption of knowing rejection, any policy covering the dwelling is deemed to include 25% law-and-ordinance coverage. The insurer must give notice of availability at least once every three years, and a failure to notice is a code violation that does not affect coverage. Colorado's § 10-4-110.8(6)(a) requires an offer of ordinance-or-law of at least 20% of the dwelling limit. California's Cal. Ins. Code § 10103(c) is an inclusion mandate, not an offer: an open replacement-cost residential policy may not be issued or renewed unless it provides building-code-upgrade coverage of at least 10% of the dwelling limit, as additional coverage that does not deplete the dwelling limit. AB 2756 added it, operative for policies issued or renewed on or after July 1, 2021.

The three percentages are not equivalents. Florida's 25% is a deemed-included floor that the insured must affirmatively reject. Colorado's 20% is an offer the insured must affirmatively accept. California's 10% is hard-wired into every replacement-cost policy with no rejection path. In an aggressive-code jurisdiction, the California 10% inclusion can be the least generous of the three even though it is the only one the insured cannot waive.

Earthquake

California stands alone. Cal. Ins. Code § 10081 bars issuing, delivering, or initially renewing a residential property policy unless the named insured is offered earthquake coverage, satisfied on the insurer's own paper, through an affiliate, or through a California Earthquake Authority policy. Section 10083 sets the mechanics: the offer may be made up to 60 days after issuance or renewal, must carry a 10-point boldface non-coverage warning, and, once declined, must be re-offered every other year. Section 10089 fixes the minimum coverages the offer must contain. No other state was identified with an earthquake offer or inclusion statute. Earthquake coverage is widely available by endorsement or standalone policy across the seismically active states, but availability is not a mandate, and outside California the decision to surface the coverage sits with the carrier.

Sinkhole and catastrophic ground cover collapse

Florida is the only state with a geologic-collapse mandate on standard residential property, and it is a two-tier structure under Fla. Stat. § 627.706. Subsection (1)(a) requires every property insurer to include catastrophic ground cover collapse (CGCC) coverage, a deliberately narrow peril that triggers only on abrupt collapse, a depression visible to the naked eye, structural damage to the building, and a governmental condemnation and vacate order. Subsection (1)(b) requires the insurer to make available, for an additional premium, broader sinkhole-loss coverage, with statutory deductible options of 1%, 2%, 5%, or 10% of the dwelling limit. An insurer excluding sinkhole losses must carry the 14-point boldface disclosure in subsection (3). Practitioners should keep the two tiers distinct: catastrophic ground cover collapse is included by law and rarely pays because of the condemnation element, while sinkhole-loss coverage is a make-available add-on that does the real work and is frequently absent from the file.

Mine subsidence

Five states compel mine-subsidence coverage in designated counties. Coverage runs through state-administered funds and reinsurance pools rather than the open market, because the private industry treats the peril as effectively uninsurable on its own.

Illinois is an inclusion mandate: under 215 ILCS 5/801.1 et seq., every property insurer must include mine-subsidence coverage in residential and commercial policies issued or renewed in 34 designated counties unless the insured rejects it in writing, administered through the Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund. Ohio splits the difference geographically: Ohio Rev. Code § 3929.56(A)(1) requires inclusion of Ohio Mine Subsidence Insurance Underwriting Association coverage in basic property and homeowners policies issued or renewed in 26 named counties, while § 3929.56(A)(2) requires an offer to include the coverage in the optional counties, with a county-commission mechanism to convert an optional county to mandatory. Kentucky (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.44-010 et seq.) and West Virginia (W. Va. Code § 33-30-6) likewise make the coverage a statewide inclusion subject to written waiver, with West Virginia providing it only on the insured's request in fifteen named counties and Kentucky exempting designated counties. Indiana (Ind. Code § 27-7-9) requires the state-backed coverage to be made available in designated coal-basin counties, indemnifying to the structure's cash value less a 2% deductible, with a bar on coverage where unrepaired mine damage is evident.

Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Wyoming run mine-subsidence programs as well, but those are voluntary purchase through a state fund rather than a carrier offer or inclusion mandate, so they do not belong in the same column. Pennsylvania, the first such program (1961), sells coverage directly through the commonwealth.

Hurricane and wind deductible options

Distinct from any coverage offer, Fla. Stat. § 627.701 requires a residential property insurer, before issuing a personal-lines policy, to offer alternative hurricane deductible amounts (currently $500, 2%, 5%, and 10% of the dwelling limits, with each percentage deductible subject to a $500 floor), specify in the written offer which deductible applies if the policyholder does not affirmatively choose one, and renotice availability in conjunction with each renewal under § 627.701(3)(a). The separate once-every-three-years notice cycle in § 627.701(7) governs the $500 deductible for non-hurricane perils, not the hurricane deductible. A policyholder electing a deductible above a statutory threshold must hand-write and sign a prescribed waiver, and a mortgagee statement is required where the property is encumbered. This is a deductible-structure offer, not a coverage offer, and it is easy to misclassify. It belongs on the map because it is an affirmative pre-issuance offer duty with its own signed-rejection formality.

Florida also mandates the windstorm coverage itself, not just the deductible structure. Under Fla. Stat. § 627.712, an insurer issuing a residential property policy must provide windstorm coverage; the policyholder may exclude it only through a signed statutory waiver (with written mortgagee or lienholder approval where the property is encumbered), which creates a presumption of a knowing rejection. Risks eligible for Citizens Property Insurance wind-only coverage are carved out. This is distinct from the § 627.701 deductible offer: § 627.712 compels the windstorm peril coverage by default, while § 627.701 compels only the menu of deductible amounts.

Heating-oil release coverage

Massachusetts is the only state that requires a homeowners insurer to address heating-oil leaks. Under M.G.L. c. 175 § 4D, every insurer licensed to write homeowners coverage (and the FAIR Plan) must make available, to owners of one-to-four-unit dwellings, heating-oil release coverage of at least $50,000 per occurrence in first-party property coverage for assessment and remediation costs and at least $200,000 per occurrence in third-party liability and legal-defense coverage, subject to a deductible no greater than $1,000. It is a make-available duty, not an affirmative offer: the insurer need not raise it, and eligibility is tied to a companion oil-system upgrade (an oil safety valve or a sleeved supply line). Outside Massachusetts, oil-leak losses turn on pollution-exclusion construction rather than any coverage mandate.

What no state mandates

No state was identified that requires an insurer to offer or include flood coverage on a residential property policy; flood is handled through the federal program and, in a handful of states, through hazard-disclosure statutes rather than a coverage-offer mandate. The same holds for water and sewer backup, service-line, equipment-breakdown, and identity-theft coverages, which remain endorsement options sold at carrier discretion. Where a state appears in the table below with "None" across the mandated columns, the conclusion is that no mandatory offer, inclusion, or make-available requirement for the surveyed residential coverages was identified, not that the state is silent on how those coverages pay once sold.

Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction

Legend: Offer (must present the coverage), Include (written into the policy, sometimes with written-rejection escape), Avail. (must make available on request), None (no mandate identified for the surveyed coverages). Effective dates and trigger formalities are in the body above.

Three states appear twice in the discussion because they carry mandates in more than one column: Florida (replacement cost, ordinance-or-law, sinkhole/CGCC, hurricane deductible), California (ordinance-or-law inclusion, earthquake offer), and Colorado (extended replacement cost, ordinance-or-law).

Surplus lines (non-admitted carriers)

Every mandate in this survey is part of a state's admitted insurance code, which raises a recurring question: do these duties bind surplus-lines (non-admitted / E&S) carriers, the market that writes the high-risk coastal and catastrophe-exposed homes the admitted market declines? The answer turns on two independent mechanics, not on the breadth of the word "insurer" alone.

1. Scope language. Where a mandate runs only to an "authorized," "licensed," or "admitted" insurer (or is delivered through an admitted-insurer association), surplus-lines carriers are excluded by the text itself, because they are by definition not authorized or licensed in the state. (Florida § 627.706 binds "every insurer authorized to transact property insurance"; West Virginia § 33-30-8, "all companies authorized to write fire insurance"; Massachusetts c. 175 § 4D, "each insurer licensed to write… homeowners' insurance"; the Illinois and Ohio mine-subsidence associations gate membership on writing authority.)
2. The admitted-code carve-out. Where a mandate uses broad, unqualified "insurer" or "every policy" language, that breadth does not exempt surplus lines: what controls is whether the state's surplus-lines law removes non-admitted carriers from the admitted code's form and coverage requirements. Florida's § 626.913(4) is the model ("the provisions of chapter 627 do not apply to surplus lines insurance" absent a specific statement); Illinois has an enumerated-section analog (215 ILCS 5/445); Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia reach the same result structurally, through a separate non-admitted article or chapter plus a regulatory practice of not reviewing surplus-lines forms or rates.

Where a state has both broad scope language and no surplus-lines exemption (notably California, and arguably Nevada and South Carolina), the default flips toward applicability. Residual-market mechanisms (FAIR Plans, JUAs, wind pools, mine-subsidence funds) are named and governed separately, are composed of admitted insurers, and are not surplus-lines vehicles.

The "Not bound" calls anchored on an express scope word or carve-out (Florida, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Massachusetts) are the firmest; the structural ones (Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky) rest on regime separation and should be confirmed before relying. Three states depart from the admitted-only default:

• Nevada appears to bind surplus lines. The manufactured-home replacement-value offer (§ 691A.020) is the clean counter-example: broad "each insurer," no Florida-style carve-out, a Code-wide "insurer" definition that includes unauthorized carriers (NRS 679A.100), and an exhaustive exemption list (NRS 679A.160) that omits surplus lines. Nevada also has no FAIR plan or JUA backstop.
• California is unclear but likely applies. The earthquake offer (§ 10081) and the building-code-upgrade inclusion (§ 10103(c)) combine broad scope with the absence of any surplus-lines exemption, which points toward applicability, but no regulation, bulletin, or court has resolved it, and industry commentary calls § 10081 a "legal gray zone."
• South Carolina is unclear. § 38-75-1230's broad "an insurer" and the lack of a general Title 38 surplus-lines exemption favor applicability, but the legislature expressly extended a sibling article to surplus lines (§ 38-75-710) while staying silent on this one.

Case law

The reported litigation clusters on how replacement cost and ordinance-or-law coverages pay, not on the offer duty itself, and it is concentrated in Florida. The earthquake, sinkhole, and mine-subsidence offer statutes have produced little appellate coverage-offer litigation, in part because the funds and the signed-rejection mechanics resolve disputes before they reach an opinion.

Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., 121 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 2013). Florida Supreme Court, on review of a Third DCA decision. Construing § 627.7011 (2008 version), the court held that replacement cost includes general-contractor overhead and profit where the insured is reasonably likely to need a general contractor, and that an insurer may not withhold that component pending actual repair. The holding resolved a conflict with Goff v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 999 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Caveat: post-Trinidad amendments changed the timing of full replacement cost payment to initial actual cash value with the remainder as work is performed, so the no-holdback principle now operates inside a staged-payment structure.

Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2007). Florida Supreme Court, on certified question from the First DCA. Construing the 2004 version of the Valued Policy Law (§ 627.702), which governed the loss, the court held that the VPL does not require payment of the policy face amount where a total loss results from a combination of a covered peril and an excluded peril, and it expressly disapproved Mierzwa. The court noted that the 2005 amendment, § 627.702(1)(b), separately codified apportionment going forward by limiting the insurer's liability to the amount of loss caused by the covered peril, but its holding rested on the earlier statute. This is the controlling statement of how the VPL interacts with concurrent causation in Florida.

Ceballo v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 967 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2007). Florida Supreme Court, decided the same day as Cox. Held that the Valued Policy Law does not override policy language for supplemental ordinance-or-law coverage, so an insured must demonstrate an actual incurred loss to recover the law-and-ordinance benefit. The case is the reason ordinance-or-law recovery in Florida turns on incurred-cost proof rather than automatic VPL face-amount payment.

Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n, 877 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Fourth DCA. Read the Valued Policy Law to impose face-amount liability whenever a covered peril contributes to a total loss, and touched the 25% ordinance-or-law benefit. Included here because adjusters still encounter the Mierzwa argument, but the apportionment holding was disapproved by Cox and superseded by the 2005 VPL amendment, so it is stale on its central point and should never be relied on without that caveat.

Minnesota's appellate courts have construed Minn. Stat. § 65A.10 on the scope of the code-upgrade obligation, including its application to partial losses and to code-required components such as sheathing that cannot be separated from a covered repair; pull current Minnesota authority directly before relying on the contours of the § 65A.10 obligation.

Practical takeaways by role

Coverage counsel. The offer-versus-include-versus-available distinction decides the burden of proof. In Florida, the absence of a signed § 627.7011(2) rejection means 25% ordinance-or-law is in the policy as a matter of law, and the same signed-rejection logic governs § 627.706 sinkhole and § 627.701 deductible elections. In California, a missing § 10081 earthquake offer is a statutory violation independent of the property-coverage dispute and can support a separate theory; do not let the earthquake question get folded into the dwelling claim. For mine subsidence, confirm the property's county against the designated list before arguing the coverage was or was not mandated, because the obligation is county-specific in every program state.

Underwriting and product. The mandates that bite are geographic and form-specific. California earthquake offers must be re-issued every other year under § 10083, and the offer paperwork and biennial re-offer are auditable compliance items, not one-time tasks. Mine-subsidence inclusion in Illinois and the 26 Ohio mandatory counties is automatic on every renewal in those counties, so rating and form logic must key off county, not just state. Colorado's extended-RCV and ordinance-or-law offer thresholds (50% and 20%) are conditions on issuing a replacement-cost policy above the replacement-cost line, and the offer drops away only when the policy already meets the floor by another route.

Claims and reserving. Build the file around which obligation applied at issuance. A Florida total-loss dwelling reserve should assume no depreciation holdback under § 627.7011(3) and should check for the deemed-included 25% ordinance-or-law layer absent a signed rejection. A California earthquake or code-upgrade question turns on what the law forced into or in front of the policy, not on what the adjuster finds in the dec page. For sinkhole, separate the included catastrophic-ground-cover-collapse layer (rarely triggered) from the make-available sinkhole-loss layer (often the real exposure, often absent), because reserving the two as one will be wrong in both directions.

Open questions and limits

The "None" determinations for states not individually pulled to primary code reflect the strong consensus, across NAIC materials, regulator guidance, and industry references, that the surveyed coverage-offer mandates are concentrated in the states named above. They should be confirmed against the specific state code before an attorney relies on a negative. Two secondary claims warrant caution: that Montana or Utah mandates ordinance-or-law coverage. Both trace to a single commercial blog and are contradicted by Montana Code Title 33 and Utah Code Title 31A (Utah Admin. Code R590-190-13 regulates RCV settlement and matching only).

Valued policy laws are noted for context only. They govern the amount paid on a total loss, not whether replacement cost or ordinance-or-law must be offered, and their triggers vary (some apply only to fire, some to all covered perils, some require premium refunds for over-insurance). Do not read a valued-policy-law state as a mandatory-offer state.

This survey states the law as of June 21, 2026, for residential and homeowners property lines. It does not resolve how any listed coverage pays in a given claim, which turns on policy form, endorsement, and the post-loss rules outside its scope. Pull the live statute, regulation, or fund plan of operation before relying on any provision in litigation, underwriting, or claims adjustment.

Sources

Primary sources (statutes, regulations, regulator and fund materials):

• Fla. Stat. § 627.7011 (offer of replacement cost and law-and-ordinance coverage): https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/627.7011
• Fla. Stat. § 627.706 (sinkhole; catastrophic ground cover collapse): https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/627.706
• Fla. Stat. § 627.701 (deductibles; hurricane/wind deductible offer): https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/627.701
• Fla. Stat. § 627.712 (residential windstorm coverage required): https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/627.712
• Fla. Stat. § 626.913(4) (surplus-lines carve-out from Chapter 627, the model admitted-code exemption): https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/626.913
• Fla. Stat. § 627.702 (Valued Policy Law): https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/627.702
• Cal. Ins. Code § 10081 (mandatory offer of earthquake coverage): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=10081
• Cal. Ins. Code § 10083 (earthquake offer mechanics): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=10083
• Cal. Ins. Code § 10103 (building-code-upgrade inclusion): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=10103
• Cal. Ins. Code § 2051.5 and 10 CCR § 2695.9 (replacement cost measure of indemnity): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=2051.5
• Cal. Ins. Code § 10103.7 (post-disaster combination of dwelling and other-structures limits; SB 894, 2018): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=10103.7
• C.R.S. § 10-4-110.8 (extended RCV and ordinance-or-law offer; HB23-1174): https://leg.colorado.gov/
• Minn. Stat. § 65A.10 (replacement cost and code-compliance content): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/65A.10
• Ohio Rev. Code § 3929.56 (mine subsidence in designated counties): https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3929.56
• 215 ILCS 5/801.1 et seq. and Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund: https://www.imsif.com/
• Ind. Code § 27-7-9 (mine subsidence availability)
• Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.44-010 et seq. (mine subsidence)
• W. Va. Code § 33-30-6 (mine subsidence)
• S.C. Code § 38-75-1230 (residential wind/hail anti-exclusion): https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-38/chapter-75/section-38-75-1230/
• Mass. Gen. Laws c. 175 § 4D (heating-oil release coverage; make-available mandate): https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter175/Section4D
• Nev. Rev. Stat. § 691A.020 (manufactured-home replacement cost offer)
• Cal. SB 876 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.), Disaster Recovery Reform Act (pending; confirm status)

Case opinions:

• Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., 121 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 2013): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4993973/trinidad-v-florida-peninsula-insurance-co/
• Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2007): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1846163/florida-farm-bureau-cas-ins-co-v-cox/
• Ceballo v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 967 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2007): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1846597/ceballo-v-citizens-property-ins-corp/
• Mierzwa v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n, 877 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1697399/mierzwa-v-florida-windstorm-underwriting/