Which of the following does NOT violate the insurance laws of Minnesota in regards to claim handling?

The statement that refusing a claim for lacking coverage does not violate insurance laws in Minnesota is accurate. In the context of workers' compensation, denying a claim based on the absence of coverage is a legitimate and lawful action. Insurance companies have the responsibility to assess claims against the specifics of the coverage granted under the policy, and if a claim falls outside those parameters, refusal is appropriate and complies with legal regulations.

This aligns with the principle that insurance providers must act within the policy's framework, ensuring that only valid claims with the necessary coverage are honored. Hence, when a claim is denied due to lack of coverage, it reflects adherence to established insurance laws and practices in Minnesota, ensuring compliance in claims handling and protective measures for both the insurer and the insured.

In contrast, the other options reflect actions that could potentially violate insurance laws. For instance, disregarding evidence of suspected fraud undermines the integrity of the claims process, while accepting claims without any verification jeopardizes the accuracy of claim handling. Taking evidence of fraud seriously is essential for legal compliance and helps maintain the trustworthiness of the insurance system.