Minnesota Insurance Fraud Law and Department of Commerce Enforcement

Insurance fraud is not a technical regulatory violation in Minnesota — it is a crime. The statutes governing it span two separate chapters of Minnesota law: the regulatory fraud framework under Minn. Stat. §§60A.951 through 60A.956, which governs disclosure obligations, insurer antifraud plans, and the Department of Commerce's investigative and enforcement authority; and the criminal fraud statute under Minn. Stat. §609.611, which establishes criminal penalties scaled to the value of the fraud. For licensed producers, the fraud framework creates both compliance obligations and personal criminal exposure. Every producer who assists in submitting a fraudulent application or claim, who participates in a staged accident scheme, or who misappropriates premium funds has committed an act that Minnesota's multi-agency enforcement system is specifically designed to detect, investigate, and prosecute.

The Two-Statute Framework: §60A.951 and §609.611

Minnesota's insurance fraud law operates through two interconnected statutory frameworks that address the same underlying conduct from different regulatory angles.

Minn. Stat. §60A.951 — The Regulatory Framework

The Minnesota insurance fraud statutory framework spans §60A.951 through §60A.956, covering definitions, disclosure of information, enforcement, antifraud plans, fraud warning requirements on claim forms, and other law enforcement authority. Prosum

Section 60A.951 defines the terms used throughout the fraud framework. An "insurance professional" means sales agents, agencies, managing general agents, brokers, producers, claims representatives, adjusters, and third-party administrators. This broad definition of insurance professional means that the regulatory fraud framework applies directly to licensed producers — not just insurers. A producer who participates in a fraudulent transaction is an insurance professional subject to this framework. NewGrad-Jobs

The definition of insurance fraud under §60A.951: Insurance fraud includes any act committed with intent to defraud that involves: presenting or causing to be presented any false, incomplete, or misleading information to an insurer for the purpose of obtaining insurance coverage; presenting or causing to be presented any false claim for payment or other benefit under an insurance policy; or assisting, abetting, soliciting, or conspiring with another to commit any of the above acts.

The materiality of the false statement: Not every inaccuracy constitutes insurance fraud under the regulatory framework. The false, incomplete, or misleading information must be material — it must be the type of information that would affect the insurer's decision to issue the policy, set the premium, or pay the claim. An applicant who misspells their middle name has not committed insurance fraud. An applicant who conceals a prior DUI conviction on an auto insurance application has provided materially false information that directly affects the insurer's underwriting decision.

The intent requirement: Both the regulatory and criminal fraud frameworks require knowing, intentional conduct. Good-faith errors, honest mistakes, and reasonable misunderstandings are not insurance fraud under either statute. A producer who submits an application containing information they believe to be accurate but that turns out to be wrong has not committed fraud. A producer who knows the information is false and submits it anyway has committed fraud regardless of whether they personally drafted the false information.

Minn. Stat. §609.611 — The Criminal Statute

Section 609.611 is Minnesota's criminal insurance fraud statute, located in the Criminal Code (Chapter 609) rather than the Insurance Code (Chapter 60A). Its placement in the criminal code signals its purpose — criminal prosecution rather than regulatory enforcement.

Criminal penalties under §609.611: Criminal sentences are based on the greater of the value of property, services, or other benefit wrongfully obtained or attempted to obtain, or the aggregate economic loss suffered by any person as a result of the violation. The penalty structure follows Minnesota's general theft sentencing framework under §609.52: USFunds

Mandatory restitution: A person convicted of a violation of this section must be ordered to pay restitution to persons aggrieved by the violation. Restitution must be ordered in addition to a fine or imprisonment but not in lieu of a fine or imprisonment. This mandatory restitution requirement means that a convicted insurance fraudster faces both the criminal sentence and a financial obligation to compensate those harmed — the insurer, policyholders who paid higher premiums as a result of fraud, or other affected parties. USFunds

The statute of limitations — discovery rule: The applicable statute of limitations shall not begin to run until the insurance company or law enforcement agency is aware of the fraud, but in no event may the prosecution be commenced later than seven years after the act has occurred. This discovery-based limitations period is critical — it means that sophisticated fraud schemes that are not discovered for years can still be prosecuted long after the fraudulent acts occurred, as long as prosecution begins within seven years of the act and within the standard limitations period from discovery. USFunds

The Enforcement Structure: Multiple Agencies, Coordinated Jurisdiction

Minnesota's insurance fraud enforcement involves multiple agencies with distinct but overlapping roles:

The Commerce Fraud Bureau

The Commerce Fraud Bureau must allocate at least 70 percent of its work to insurance fraud, as defined in sections 60A.951, subdivision 4, and 609.611. The Commerce Fraud Bureau is a dedicated insurance fraud investigation unit within the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Its primary functions include: Denver Gazette

Reviewing notices and reports of insurance fraud and related crimes submitted by authorized insurers, their employees, and agents or producers pursuant to sections 60A.951 to 60A.956 Denver Gazette

Responding to notifications or complaints generated by other law enforcement agencies, state or federal governmental units, or any other person Denver Gazette

Initiating inquiries and conducting investigations when the bureau has reason to believe that an offense has been or is being committed Denver Gazette

The Commerce Fraud Bureau is specifically authorized under §60A.951 as an "authorized person" for insurance fraud investigations — giving it full investigative authority within the insurance fraud framework. The commissioner of commerce is an authorized person, meaning the commissioner of commerce for insurers regulated by the commissioner of commerce. Jome

The Financial Crimes and Fraud Section (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension)

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) maintains a Financial Crimes and Fraud Section that handles larger insurance fraud matters. The section may impose administrative penalties, order restitution to any person suffering loss, and order restitution to a company for the reasonable documented cost of any investigation. WTW

One hundred percent of the funding allocated to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for the assessment may only be used for the investigation of insurance fraud and related crimes. This dedicated funding — generated by insurer assessments — ensures that insurance fraud investigation resources are protected from reallocation to other law enforcement priorities. CNBC

County Attorneys and Local Law Enforcement

Authorized persons include the county attorney, sheriff, or chief of police responsible for investigations in the county where the suspected insurance fraud occurred. Local prosecutors and law enforcement play an important role in insurance fraud enforcement — particularly for frauds that are geographically contained within a single county, such as staged accident schemes, contractor fraud following storm damage, or individual policyholder fraud. Jome

The Attorney General

The Minnesota Attorney General is also an authorized person under the fraud framework, providing statewide prosecutorial authority for complex or multi-county insurance fraud matters that exceed local prosecutorial capacity.

Federal Agencies

Federal law enforcement becomes involved when insurance fraud crosses state lines, involves federal programs (Medicare, Medicaid, federal workers' compensation), or reaches the threshold of federal criminal statutes. The FBI investigates insurance fraud involving interstate commerce. The Department of Labor-OIG investigates workers' compensation fraud. HHS-OIG investigates Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

The Insurer Antifraud Plan Requirement

Minn. Stat. §60A.954 requires that every insurer authorized to do business in Minnesota maintain a comprehensive antifraud plan. This plan must address how the insurer identifies, investigates, and reports fraudulent claims and applications.

Required antifraud plan components:

Procedures to detect and investigate insurance fraud by policyholders, claimants, and the insurer's own employees and appointed producers

Employee training on fraud detection and the insurer's antifraud procedures

Designation of a fraud investigation unit or assignment of fraud investigation responsibilities

Procedures for reporting suspected fraud to the Commerce Fraud Bureau and other authorized persons

The producer's intersection with insurer antifraud plans: Antifraud plans specifically address fraud by appointed producers — agents and brokers who represent the insurer. When an insurer's fraud investigation identifies a producer as a participant in fraudulent activity, the plan requires referral to appropriate authorities. This creates a direct pipeline from insurer investigation to Department of Commerce regulatory action and potential criminal prosecution.

Claim Forms Must Contain Fraud Warning

Minn. Stat. §60A.955 requires that all insurance claim forms submitted to Minnesota insurers contain a fraud warning statement. The warning must notify claimants that making a false or fraudulent claim is a crime subject to criminal penalties. This requirement applies to all claim forms — property claims, casualty claims, life insurance claims, and health insurance claims.

Why the fraud warning matters for producers: A producer who assists a client in completing a claim form that contains the fraud warning and who knows or has reason to know the claim contains false information is on notice of the legal consequences. The fraud warning on the claim form is not merely for the claimant's benefit — it also signals to anyone involved in the claim process, including producers who facilitate submissions, that fraudulent claims carry criminal consequences.

The Administrative Penalty Framework

In addition to criminal prosecution, the Department of Commerce has authority to impose administrative penalties for insurance fraud. The commissioner may impose an administrative penalty against any person for each intentional act of insurance fraud or substantiated acts of attempted insurance fraud, as defined in section 60A.951, subdivision 4, committed by that person. CNBC

The administrative penalty for each violation may be no more than: $20,000 if the funds or value wrongfully obtained exceeds $5,000; $10,000 if funds exceed $1,000 but not $5,000; $3,000 if more than $500 but not $1,000; $1,000 if $500 or less. WTW

Administrative penalties are per-violation: Each separate fraudulent act constitutes a separate violation for penalty purposes. A producer who submitted 20 fraudulent applications faces up to 20 separate administrative penalties — potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in total administrative liability, in addition to any criminal penalties and restitution obligations.

Administrative penalties operate independently of criminal prosecution: The Department may impose administrative penalties regardless of whether criminal charges are filed. A producer may face administrative penalties even when the conduct does not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution — the administrative standard does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Types of Insurance Fraud in Minnesota

Minnesota's insurance fraud enforcement addresses a broad spectrum of fraudulent conduct:

Policyholder fraud — false claims:

Staging auto accidents to generate false injury and property damage claims

Falsely reporting a vehicle stolen while concealing its actual location

Inflating the value of property damaged in a genuine covered loss

Adding undamaged items to a legitimate property claim

Submitting claims for medical treatment that was not received

Application fraud — misrepresentation at policy issuance:

Concealing prior accidents, DUI convictions, or license suspensions on auto insurance applications

Misrepresenting the primary use of a vehicle to obtain lower rates

Failing to disclose material medical conditions on life or health insurance applications

Understating payroll or misclassifying workers on workers' compensation applications

Provider fraud — healthcare and workers' compensation:

Billing for medical services not rendered

Upcoding — billing for a higher-level service than was actually provided

Unbundling — billing separately for services that should be billed as a package

Directing patients to submit false claims in exchange for kickbacks

Producer fraud — misconduct by licensed producers:

Submitting policy applications without the client's knowledge or consent

Misappropriating premium payments and not remitting them to the insurer

Submitting false claims on behalf of clients and diverting proceeds

Issuing false certificates of insurance

Participating in staged accident schemes

The Immunity Framework for Good-Faith Reporting

Minn. Stat. §60A.952 establishes immunity protections for persons who report suspected insurance fraud to authorized persons in good faith. Producers, insurers, employees, and members of the public who report suspected fraud cannot be held civilly liable for that report as long as it is made in good faith.

What the immunity covers: The immunity protects against civil liability for the act of reporting — defamation claims, tortious interference claims, and similar civil theories that a fraud suspect might bring against the person who reported them. A producer who reports a client's suspected fraud to the insurer or Commerce Fraud Bureau cannot be sued by the client for making that report, provided it was made in good faith.

What the immunity does not protect: False or malicious reports made with intent to harm the target rather than to report genuine fraud are not protected. A producer who fabricates a fraud allegation against a competitor and reports it to the Commerce Fraud Bureau to damage the competitor's business has not acted in good faith and does not receive immunity.

Producer Obligations When Fraud Is Suspected

When a Minnesota producer discovers or suspects insurance fraud — whether by a client, a third-party claimant, or a colleague — several obligations arise:

Do not participate: A producer who knows a claim or application contains false information and assists in submitting it has committed insurance fraud. The statutory definition of fraud explicitly includes assisting, abetting, soliciting, or conspiring with another to commit fraud. The obligation to refuse participation is not negotiable.

Report to the insurer: Producers who identify suspected fraud should report it to the insurer's fraud investigation unit or compliance department. The insurer's antifraud plan is designed to receive and act on these reports. Reporting to the insurer triggers the immunity protections under §60A.952.

Report directly to the Commerce Fraud Bureau when appropriate: For serious or systemic fraud — particularly schemes involving multiple victims or organized fraud rings — producers may report directly to the Commerce Fraud Bureau. The Bureau accepts reports from producers, industry participants, and the general public.

Document independently: Before reporting, document what was observed, when it was observed, and what specific facts support the suspicion of fraud. This documentation protects the producer if the report is later contested.

Do not confront the suspected fraudster: Direct confrontation risks evidence destruction, physical danger, and compromise of subsequent investigations. Report through appropriate channels rather than addressing the fraud directly.

Frequently Asked Questions

A client pressures me to submit a claim that I believe is inflated. If I refuse and they submit it directly, am I still at risk?

Your risk depends on your conduct. If you refuse to assist in the fraudulent submission and do not facilitate it in any way, you have not committed fraud. Your obligation at that point is to consider whether to report the suspected fraud to the insurer — which is protected by the §60A.952 immunity. If you remain silent knowing the fraud is being committed and continue the client relationship without disclosure, you may face questions about whether your silence constitutes participation or concealment. The safest course is to decline to participate, document your refusal and the circumstances, and report the suspected fraud to the insurer's fraud unit.

How does the discovery-based statute of limitations affect a producer who committed fraud years ago?

The statute of limitations shall not begin to run until the insurance company or law enforcement agency is aware of the fraud, but in no event may the prosecution be commenced later than seven years after the act has occurred. A producer who committed fraud five years ago and whose conduct has just been discovered has created a prosecution window that extends from the date of discovery — potentially many years into the future, subject only to the absolute seven-year outer limit from the date of the act. Fraud that was committed recently has a longer potential prosecution window than fraud committed six or seven years ago, which is approaching the absolute cutoff. The discovery rule is designed specifically to prevent fraudsters from evading prosecution by concealing their conduct until the standard limitations period expires. USFunds

Can the Department of Commerce take regulatory action against a producer for fraud even if criminal charges are not filed?

Yes. Administrative enforcement by the Department of Commerce operates independently of criminal prosecution under different legal standards. The Department may impose administrative penalties, issue cease and desist orders, suspend or revoke a producer's license based on evidence of fraudulent conduct — all without a criminal conviction. The administrative standard is the preponderance of evidence standard used in civil proceedings, not the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required for criminal conviction. This means the Department can act against a producer whose conduct is established by a preponderance of evidence even when a prosecutor determines the evidence is insufficient for criminal prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.

Minnesota's insurance fraud enforcement framework — spanning the regulatory antifraud provisions of §§60A.951 through 60A.956, the criminal penalties of §609.611, the Commerce Fraud Bureau's investigative authority, and the coordinated involvement of the BCA, county attorneys, and federal agencies — creates a comprehensive system for detecting, investigating, and punishing fraud at every level of the insurance transaction chain. Producers who understand the framework operate with a clear picture of their obligations: refuse to participate in fraud, report suspected fraud through appropriate channels, document their conduct, and rely on the immunity protections that Minnesota law provides to good-faith reporters.

Visit JustInsurance to enroll today and complete your Minnesota prelicensing with a state-approved course covering every fraud law and enforcement provision tested on the PSI exam.