Kentucky's zero-deductible auto glass law is the nation's broadest

Kentucky mandates that every comprehensive auto insurance policy cover the full cost of auto glass repair or replacement with no deductible — and since April 2024, that mandate explicitly includes ADAS recalibration. Codified in KRS 304.20-060 since 1979, the law makes Kentucky one of only three U.S. states (alongside Florida and South Carolina) with a mandatory, automatic zero-deductible glass provision. The 2024 overhaul through Senate Bill 29 modernized the statute significantly, expanding it to cover advanced driver assistance system calibration, adding anti-steering protections, and creating new consumer protection and anti-fraud provisions for glass repair shops. Kentucky's version is the most comprehensive of the three states — covering all motor vehicle glass, legally required light materials, associated non-glass parts, and ADAS calibration — while Florida covers only the windshield.

The statutory framework rests on four interlocking laws

The primary statute is KRS 304.20-060, originally enacted in 1978 (effective January 1, 1979) and substantially amended by 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 27, sec. 2 (SB 29), effective April 2, 2024. The core mandate in subsection (2) reads: "Any motor vehicle insurance policy issued by an admitted or nonadmitted carrier that provides comprehensive coverage or other than collision coverage, whether designated as such or included within a broader coverage, shall, when the claim is for motor vehicle glass only, provide complete coverage for repair or replacement of damaged motor vehicle glass without regard to any deductible or minimum amount."

The original 1978 version used the term "safety equipment" to describe covered items. The 2024 amendment replaced this with "motor vehicle glass," defined in subsection (1)(b) as the glass and non-glass parts associated with replacement of glass used in the windshield, doors, or windows, plus the glass, plastic, or other material used in lights required by KRS Chapter 189 (headlights, taillights, turn signals). This definition is notably broader than peer states' laws.

Three companion statutes complete the framework. KRS 304.9-470, enacted in 1992, prohibits insurers, agents, and adjusters from requiring policyholders to use a particular glass company or location, and bars intimidation or coercion toward that end. It also prohibits glass sellers from advertising deductible rebates and caps insurer payment obligations at "the lowest price available in the market area provided by a qualified, competent glass repair company." Violations trigger penalties under KRS 304.99-020.

KRS 367.361, created by SB 29 in 2024, regulates glass repair shop conduct under the Consumer Protection chapter. It prohibits shops from offering rebates, gift cards, cash, or other inducements to steer insurance claims; requires shops to obtain a claim or referral number from the insurer before beginning work; mandates pre-contract ADAS disclosure; requires itemized invoices; and prohibits charging more than "reasonable and customarily charged" rates. Enforcement includes a private right of action with double actual economic damages plus attorney's fees, and Kentucky Attorney General authority under the Consumer Protection Act (KRS 367.110–367.300).

KRS 304.20-105, also created by SB 29, prohibits assignment of benefits under property and casualty insurance policies. This prevents glass shops from taking assignment of an insured's policy rights — a practice that had been linked to inflated claims and litigation in other states, particularly Florida before its 2023 AOB reform.

The legislature has twice attempted to repeal the zero-deductible mandate — through HB 140 in 2005 and another bill in 2013 — and both efforts failed. The 2024 SB 29 explicitly preserved the mandate while adding the new regulatory framework around it.

How the mandate works for Kentucky drivers

The zero-deductible provision operates automatically for any motor vehicle insurance policy that includes comprehensive or "other than collision" coverage. There is no opt-in, no endorsement, and no additional premium required. If a Kentucky driver carries comprehensive coverage — which is optional under Kentucky's minimum coverage requirements of 25/50/25 liability, PIP, and uninsured motorist, but typically required by lenders on financed or leased vehicles — the glass mandate applies by force of statute.

Coverage extends to both repair and replacement of all motor vehicle glass. The statute's language is unambiguous: "repair or replacement of damaged motor vehicle glass." Unlike Florida's law, which covers only the front windshield, Kentucky's mandate encompasses windshield glass, door glass, window glass, and the materials used in legally required lights. Since the 2024 amendment, coverage also explicitly includes non-glass parts associated with glass replacement and ADAS recalibration.

One significant qualifier was added in 2024: the zero-deductible applies "when the claim is for motor vehicle glass only." This means that if glass damage occurs as part of a larger collision or comprehensive claim — for example, a hailstorm that damages both the windshield and body panels — the glass-specific zero-deductible provision may not apply separately, and the standard comprehensive deductible could apply to the entire claim. This qualifier had no equivalent in the original 1978 statute.

The 2024 amendment also extended the mandate's reach to both admitted and nonadmitted carriers, closing a potential gap where surplus lines insurers might have argued the mandate didn't apply to them.

ADAS calibration is now explicitly covered at zero deductible

Kentucky's 2024 amendment made it one of the most forward-looking states regarding advanced driver assistance systems. KRS 304.20-060(1)(a) defines "advanced driver assistance system" as any motor vehicle electronic safety system outlined in SAE International's SAE J3016 Levels of Driving Automation that increases motor vehicle safety and reduces crash-related losses. Subsection (1)(e) then defines "repair or replacement of damaged motor vehicle glass" to include "calibrating or recalibrating an advanced driver assistance system when an incident requires the replacement of damaged motor vehicle glass."

Because ADAS calibration is folded into the statutory definition of glass repair or replacement, it falls under the zero-deductible mandate in subsection (2). An insurer cannot charge a deductible for ADAS recalibration that is necessitated by a covered glass replacement. This is significant given that ADAS calibration can cost $200 to $1,600 or more depending on the vehicle and system complexity.

Glass repair shops face corresponding obligations under KRS 367.361(4)(a). Before contracting with an insured, a shop must notify the customer whether the vehicle has an ADAS, whether calibration or recalibration is required to restore it to manufacturer specifications, and whether the shop can perform the calibration. If the shop cannot calibrate the system, it must advise the customer to take the vehicle to a certified dealership or qualified specialist. Upon completion, the shop must provide written notice of whether the ADAS is in working order after calibration.

No Kentucky DOI bulletins or administrative regulations specifically interpreting the ADAS calibration provisions have been issued as of early 2026. The Attorney General has authority under KRS 367.361(11) to promulgate implementing regulations, but none appear to have been published yet. This leaves potential ambiguity around what constitutes "reasonable and customarily charged" ADAS calibration rates, whether insurers can require aftermarket calibration equipment versus OEM dealership calibration, and disputes over calibration costs. The Auto Glass Safety Council's AGRSS Standard (ANSI/AGSC/AGRSS 005-2022) addresses ADAS calibration requirements for technicians and equipment, but this industry standard is voluntary and not codified in Kentucky law.

Consumer protections against insurer resistance are multilayered

Kentucky law provides several mechanisms to protect consumers when insurers push back on glass claims. The anti-steering framework now operates through two parallel statutes. KRS 304.9-470(1) prohibits insurers, agents, and adjusters from requiring policyholders to use a particular glass company, and bars intimidation or coercion toward that end. The 2024 amendment to KRS 304.20-060(3)(a) reinforces this: "An insured that makes a first-party claim for a repair or replacement of damaged motor vehicle glass under a motor vehicle insurance policy shall not be required to use a particular motor vehicle glass repair shop to receive claim payments or other benefits under the policy."

A notable nuance exists in Kentucky's general right-to-choose statute, KRS 304.12-275, which prohibits insurers from dictating where policyholders have general auto repairs done but historically contained a specific exemption for glass repair. The 2024 glass-specific anti-steering provision in KRS 304.20-060(3) effectively created an independent right-to-choose for glass claims, though it explicitly permits insurers to maintain networks of preferred glass shops and to explain coverage and applicable liability limits. The distinction is between recommendation and mandate: an insurer can suggest a preferred shop, but cannot condition claim payments on using one.

The Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (KRS 304.12-230) and regulation 806 KAR 12:095 set broader claims-handling standards that apply to glass claims. Insurers must acknowledge claims within 15 days, affirm or deny coverage within 30 days of proof of loss, and pay within 30 days or owe interest under KRS 304.12-235. Misrepresenting coverage, failing to investigate promptly, and refusing good-faith settlement are prohibited unfair claims practices.

Consumers can file complaints through the Kentucky DOI Division of Consumer Protection (800-595-6053 or online at insurance.ky.gov) and through the Attorney General's Office of Consumer Protection (888-432-9257) for glass shop violations under KRS 367.361. The 2024 law created a private right of action against glass shops — but notably, not against insurers — for violations of the shop regulation provisions. KRS 304.20-060(3)(b)(3) explicitly states the anti-steering provision "shall not...create a private right of action."

No specific DOI bulletins, advisory opinions, or enforcement actions targeting auto glass claim practices were identified in research. The DOI's Glass (Monoline) Review Requirements Checklist (revised 2008) and Motor Vehicle Insurance Review Requirements Checklist (March 2019) contain regulatory guidance confirming that "for policies with comprehensive coverage, safety equipment must be replaced or repaired without any deductible," but no standalone enforcement bulletin on insurer glass compliance exists.

Major insurers comply formally but create friction informally

Research reveals a consistent pattern: State Farm, GEICO, and Allstate technically apply the zero-deductible mandate in Kentucky but create practical barriers through claims system design and call center operations that undermine consumer awareness of their rights.

State Farm switched from LYNX Services to Safelite Solutions as its glass claims administrator effective July 1, 2025 — a major industry shift. Its digital claims portal presents seven shops by ZIP code; if a customer's preferred shop isn't listed, they must call Safelite Solutions directly. The Independent Glass Association has documented instances of the digital portal displaying Safelite AutoGlass branding with no clear distinction between the TPA role (Safelite Solutions) and the service provider role (Safelite AutoGlass), customer service representatives implying that non-listed shops may not offer warranties or may require out-of-pocket payment, and referral information allegedly never reaching shops that insureds selected. State Farm's national website does acknowledge Kentucky's zero-deductible provision.

GEICO partners with Safelite for streamlined glass claims, with the system designed so the "path of least resistance" leads to Safelite. Consumer reports indicate GEICO effectively covers Safelite aftermarket glass, with one documented complaint noting "there is no option available to cover OEM glass — it's labor only if I don't go Safelite." While consumers can legally choose their own shop, the process architecture discourages it.

Allstate similarly routes glass claims through Safelite Solutions from start to finish. When customers call, they are reportedly connected to Safelite through a "white-labeled" process, with immediate scheduling offered for Safelite technicians.

The most persistent compliance issue across all carriers is customer service representatives telling Kentucky policyholders they have a deductible on glass claims. Josh Patrick of Central Kentucky Auto Glass told LEX 18 news that "many customer service representatives who work for insurance companies either aren't aware of the law here, or they just don't share that information with their customers," adding that he is "having to inform customers daily of this law." Because only three states have the zero-deductible mandate, national call centers use scripts that default to deductible language for most states, and Kentucky's exception gets lost.

The Safelite dual-role issue extends nationally. In March 2025, the IGA filed an antitrust complaint with the FTC alleging Safelite Solutions uses its TPA position to funnel work to Safelite AutoGlass. A subsequent CAN-SPAM Act complaint alleged Safelite sends deceptive emails to insureds after they've chosen independent shops, with subject lines like "Action needed regarding your windshield claim" designed to redirect them to Safelite. The DOJ committee was reviewing the antitrust case as of mid-2025. Separately, Safelite agreed to a $31 million settlement in March 2025 over qui tam complaints alleging it billed insurers for OEM windshield moulding while using cheaper aftermarket moulding — practices alleged to be nationwide.

No Kentucky-specific glass litigation exists, but national cases apply

Despite the zero-deductible mandate being in place since 1979, no reported Kentucky court cases directly adjudicate disputes over KRS 304.20-060. No class actions, no federal court cases in the Eastern or Western Districts of Kentucky, and no administrative enforcement proceedings specifically targeting glass claim handling have been identified. This likely reflects both the statute's clarity and insurers' technical compliance with the deductible waiver, even as they engage in softer forms of resistance.

The most relevant litigation occurs at the national level with Kentucky implications. The Campfield/Ultra Bond v. Safelite Group case in the Sixth Circuit (which covers Kentucky) addressed Safelite's advertising claims that windshield cracks longer than six inches could not be safely repaired. The IGA v. Safelite Solutions case (D. Minn., 2005) established precedent on steering claims and associational standing in the auto glass industry, with documented allegations that Safelite call center employees told customers choosing non-Safelite shops that services might not be guaranteed, installers might be less trained, and premiums might rise.

In December 2023, the Kentucky Attorney General settled with State Farm for $1.35 million over allegations that agents failed to disclose available UM/UIM coverage. While not glass-specific, this settlement demonstrates the AG's willingness to pursue auto insurance disclosure violations.

The 2024 SB 29's new private right of action under KRS 367.361 is expected to generate future litigation, though no cases had been filed under it as of this research.

NAIC data does not isolate glass claims but reveals complaint patterns

The NAIC's data infrastructure does not disaggregate auto insurance complaints by claim type, making Kentucky-specific auto glass complaint data unavailable through national databases. The Market Conduct Annual Statement (MCAS) collects private passenger auto data including claims counts, denial rates, and lawsuit counts, but this data is aggregated across all claim types and primarily accessible to state regulators rather than the public.

National NAIC complaint indexes for 2023 show significant variation among major carriers: GEICO carried an index of 1.836 (84% more complaints than expected for its size), while Allstate registered 3.53 (253% above expected). State Farm had the lowest complaint ratio among the four largest insurers. These figures cover all auto insurance complaints nationwide and cannot be attributed to glass claims specifically.

The Kentucky DOI maintains its own complaint ratio database measuring justified complaints per million dollars of premium sold in Kentucky. The Division of Consumer Protection handles all auto complaints including glass-related ones, requiring insurer responses within 15 calendar days and typically resolving cases within 30 days. No publicly available Kentucky DOI market conduct examination reports specifically addressing glass claim handling by any major insurer were identified.

Kentucky leads the three zero-deductible states in coverage breadth

The three mandatory zero-deductible glass states differ significantly in scope. Kentucky's KRS 304.20-060 provides the broadest coverage, encompassing all motor vehicle glass, non-glass replacement parts, legally required light materials, and ADAS calibration. South Carolina's SC Code §38-77-280(B) covers all "automobile safety glass" and has the broadest triggering mechanism — applying to any automobile physical damage insurance deductible, not just comprehensive coverage. Florida's FL Statute §627.7288 is the narrowest, covering only "the windshield" despite its section heading referencing "motor vehicle glass" generally.

Kentucky covers all glass + lights + ADAS calibration; requires comprehensive or "other than collision" coverage; applies to admitted and nonadmitted carriers; includes a "glass-only claim" qualifier added in 2024

Florida covers windshield only; requires comprehensive or "combined additional" coverage; paired with AOB prohibition (§627.7289) and anti-steering provisions (§627.7291)

South Carolina covers all safety glass; applies to any automobile physical damage coverage deductible; SC DOI explicitly notes "there is no 'free' glass coverage" — the deductible is waived, but comprehensive coverage still carries a premium

A second tier of states — Arizona (ARS §20-264), Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §38a-339), and Minnesota (Minn. Stat. §65B.134) — require insurers to offer zero-deductible glass coverage as an opt-in option, typically for additional premium. These are fundamentally different from the mandatory provisions in Kentucky, Florida, and South Carolina, as they require affirmative election by the policyholder. New York (NY Ins. Law §3411(k)) merely permits insurers to sell glass coverage without a deductible, and Massachusetts requires offering a $0 or $100 deductible option without mandating zero cost.

Kentucky's 2024 legislation has already influenced national policy. The NCOIL Motor Vehicle Glass Model Act, adopted April 27, 2025, was sponsored by Kentucky Rep. Michael "Sarge" Pollock and explicitly modeled on Kentucky's SB 29. The model act is being considered in multiple states including New York, Iowa, and Washington.

Conclusion

Kentucky's auto glass insurance framework, anchored by KRS 304.20-060, represents the most comprehensive mandatory zero-deductible glass coverage in the United States. The 2024 SB 29 amendments transformed what was a straightforward 1978 deductible-waiver statute into a modern regulatory framework addressing ADAS technology, consumer steering, claims fraud, and assignment of benefits — all while preserving the core zero-deductible mandate that has survived two repeal attempts.

The most actionable insight for Kentucky consumers is this: if you carry comprehensive coverage, you owe nothing out of pocket for any auto glass repair or replacement, including ADAS recalibration, regardless of what a customer service representative tells you on the phone. The statute is self-executing and requires no opt-in. The most significant compliance gap is not formal deductible charging but rather informational asymmetry — national call centers routinely misinform Kentucky policyholders about their rights — compounded by claims systems architecturally designed to funnel work toward Safelite. The absence of a private right of action against insurers (as opposed to glass shops) under the 2024 amendments represents a meaningful enforcement gap that may require future legislative attention.

Key statutes for reference: KRS 304.20-060 (zero-deductible mandate and anti-steering), KRS 304.9-470 (prohibited insurer practices in glass), KRS 367.361 (glass shop regulation and consumer protection), and KRS 304.20-105 (assignment of benefits prohibition). The Kentucky DOI can be reached at 800-595-6053, and complaints filed online at insurance.ky.gov.