The At-Fault Driver Won't Reveal Their Insurance Limits. Here Is What California Law Actually Does.

This matters because the wrong citation weakens the very letter that is supposed to create pressure. The correct authority is stronger, and I use it below.

California is in the minority of states with no across-the-board pre-suit disclosure statute. Instead, the pressure to disclose comes from four sources that work together:

A candid note: California does not allow a third-party claimant to sue the other driver's insurer directly for unfair claims practices (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund). The leverage above runs through the at-fault driver's own exposure and the duty the insurer owes its insured, plus the discovery you gain by filing. A letter that understands that distinction is far more credible than one that misstates it.

Disclosure matters most when your loss is near or above the at-fault driver's limits, because that is when the insurer faces real exposure beyond the policy.

• Minimum limits went up. As of January 1, 2025, California's minimum auto liability limits are 30,000 / 60,000 / 15,000 (Vehicle Code § 16056, via SB 1107). Property-damage liability is now $15,000.
• A mid-five-figure property-damage claim can exceed a minimum-limits policy. If your repair, diminished-value, and loss-of-use damages run, say, $25,000 to $35,000 against a $15,000 policy, the driver is personally exposed for the excess, and the insurer is squarely in Boicourt territory if it refuses to engage.
• Limited civil up to $35,000. Code of Civil Procedure § 85 (effective January 1, 2024) sets the limited-civil ceiling at $35,000. A property-damage claim under that figure is a limited-civil case, which is faster and cheaper to file, and that filing is exactly what unlocks discovery of the limits.

So the disclosure request is not academic. Knowing the limits tells you whether to settle inside the policy, pursue the driver personally for the excess, or position the claim to put the carrier's own exposure at risk.

The letter is not a form. It is built to make refusal expensive for the carrier and to set up your next move. A strong letter:

• Identifies the claim, the date and location of the loss, and the at-fault driver, with the claim number where known.
• Establishes liability cleanly and documents your damages, so the carrier cannot pretend the claim is speculative.
• Requests confirmation of the applicable liability limits and signals a willingness to resolve within them, which is what triggers the Boicourt dynamic.
• Sets a reasonable written deadline and routes all communication through me, on attorney letterhead, sent by certified mail with signature requested plus email.
• Preserves the record: a documented refusal becomes evidence later, and a documented willingness to settle within limits becomes the foundation if the matter escalates.

Many carriers disclose or open settlement discussions once an attorney frames a credible, within-limits resolution and the consequences of stonewalling are spelled out. I cannot promise any particular insurer will respond, but a letter that states the correct law and a clear path to filing is the version that gets taken seriously.

If the damaged vehicle is a commercial coach, truck, or other revenue-generating equipment, your claim is usually larger than a passenger-car fender-bender, and that strengthens the disclosure request.

• Loss of use and lost business income for a commercial vehicle are part of the recoverable property-damage measure when documented (downtime, substitute equipment, lost bookings or routes).
• Those items frequently push the total above a minimum-limits policy, which is precisely the excess-exposure scenario that makes prompt disclosure valuable.
• Clean documentation (repair estimates, downtime logs, revenue records) is what converts “business downtime” from a number you assert into a number the carrier has to take seriously.

When a carrier ignores a proper pre-suit request, the next step is to file. For a property-damage claim at or under $35,000, that is a limited-civil action, and on filing the policy limits become discoverable under CCP § 2017.210. Filing and prosecuting the lawsuit is a separate engagement from the letter, with its own written agreement, conflict check, and fee. I will quote that phase separately if and when you decide to proceed. The letter often resolves the disclosure question before it gets that far.