[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,75,87],{"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6120842,"mediaKeyId","2705978-9d56904cb8aaa1832f660ac72ed26046","parentId",2705978,"title","Committee hears bill to let insurance commissioner order restitution, expand per-violation fines","audioSeconds",3120,"startMs",60000,"endMs",3180000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2705978-9d56904cb8aaa1832f660ac72ed26046&start=60&end=3180","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2705978-9d56904cb8aaa1832f660ac72ed26046/thumbnail_60000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6120842/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-let-insurance-commissioner-order-restitution-expand-per-violation-fines","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120842-a4f89dd2283845c75c78a8bdab437175/orig.mp4?Expires=1769686140&Signature=kIWBbu6H1Uufb4RyRLorkZMdNjGu2UnRIP1MzAYZ57MpcoWPhPD6aGY25vLEo58HFqxBQ1seByFFgNGEC1VIfhZffcCjK~QQAU1HyZgpJD1mSae91QqLMO4kqGG-Xs3zTzfP2JON6DY9Z5x6KfHQebuGW6S-xBoGj4UgCs~4dyK3fzX9IoFPtf8Dsubwh9M3rzxvl4ZlR7VECuYQSG0y0EbEmf0ba8oGTfURImtNVOo1Bywg0pW4-7vSQmSBl54DX1Tniqcr0bTDsjs~ynRVL596UUwcS2ARrslSF~WFN83B4OAckHyt6M0q9WkXg1ak8CO7deDIUzNk3SiEqDApwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Consumer Protection & Business","date","2025-03-19T00:00:00Z","article","Substitute Senate Bill 5331, which would give the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) authority to order restitution to harmed consumers and change how civil fines are assessed against insurers, was the subject of an extended public hearing before the Consumer Protection & Business Committee on March 19.

The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Adrian Cortez, introduced the measure as a consumer-protection tool. \"Bottom line, this is a consumer protection bill,\" Senator Cortez told the committee, asking members to move the bill forward.

Staff described the bill in detail. Peter Clodfelter, staff to the committee, summarized that the measure \"adds authorization for the office of the insurance commissioner to order the payment of restitution after a hearing or with a person's consent if the insurance commissioner has cause to believe that a person[ is] violating or about to violate the insurance code or a regulation or order of the commissioner.\" The bill also narrows restitution to \"only demonstrated economic damages due to another person, excluding a provider,\" and defines several timing rules for when an obligation \"arises\" for interest calculations.

Insurance Commissioner Patty Kuderer, the lead OIC witness, said the change is needed because the agency can now levy fines but cannot order repayment to consumers. \"When an insurer, agent, or broker violates the law, we can take action against them, including fines, but we cannot do what the consumers and businesses want most, give them back their money,\" Kuderer said. She added the measure would also make the bureau’s fine schedule uniform across regulated entities.

The bill would require any restitution ordered to include 8% simple interest from the date the obligation arose and to be paid to the person entitled to restitution within 30 days of the order. Staff explained the bill includes specific timing rules: for claim payments the obligation generally \"arises\" 30 days after the insurer received all information necessary to determine liability and payment unless investigation cannot reasonably be completed in that period; premium obligations are dated to when the premium was charged; and other obligations are dated to when the obligation was required by statute, rule, contract, or written notice of noncompliance.

Supporters including AARP Washington State and the Consumer Federation of America urged passage. Kathleen McCall, Advocacy Director for AARP Washington State, said consumers — particularly older adults on fixed incomes — can be harmed when they are unable to recover money. Michael DeLong of the Consumer Federation argued that \"fines paid to the state are good, but they're no substitute for the return of the money that consumers are rightfully owed.\"

Industry witnesses praised the restitution language but asked for changes to the penalty structure. Kenton Bridal, president of the Northwest Insurance Council, told the committee his group will submit written comments and corrected a prior statement the trade group had made in an earlier hearing. Chris Tefft of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association recommended distinguishing willful from non-willful violations and adding aggregate caps, saying the bill as drafted could expose insurers — including good actors — to very large aggregate fines. Bill Stoffacher of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of Washington said there are \"bad actors\" and urged tools to hold them accountable but emphasized concern about unintended consequences.

Committee members pressed the commissioner and witnesses on frequency and mechanics. Commissioner Kuderer described examples the agency is pursuing, including a producer who collected premiums but did not transfer coverage to insurers; she said some matters also lead to criminal referrals. Several legislators asked whether aggregate caps would be factored into insurers’ rate filings; Kuderer said fines are not supposed to be passed through to consumers in rate setting.

No formal action or vote on SB 5331 was recorded in the hearing. The committee closed public testimony on the bill after in-person and remote witnesses finished their remarks.

The hearing record includes discussion of judicial review and administrative appeals: the OIC enforcement process typically proceeds to an administrative law judge and can be appealed through Superior Court, Court of Appeals and up to the state Supreme Court, which witnesses cited as checks on excessive fines.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing; testimony concluded and the public hearing was closed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Consumer Protection & Business - 3/19/2025 1:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Substitute Senate Bill 5331, which would let the Office of the Insurance Commissioner order restitution to harmed policyholders and change fines to a per-violation basis, drew extended testimony at the Consumer Protection & Business Committee public hearing on March 19.","taxTitle","Consumer Protection & Business, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20258,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":76,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":77,"_40":78,"_42":79,"_44":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6120832,"Bill would cap local distance rules to help social-equity cannabis retailers find locations",1245,3672000,4917000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2705978-9d56904cb8aaa1832f660ac72ed26046&start=3672&end=4917","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2705978-9d56904cb8aaa1832f660ac72ed26046/thumbnail_3672000.jpg","/articles/6120832/Washington/Bill-would-cap-local-distance-rules-to-help-social-equity-cannabis-retailers-find-locations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120832-dce6251a383db336b8dae8911c30f0e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1769686140&Signature=mpgRURSBF1kmpNgWstW727rXGfmcX-pIQEHXMBjNqGmgW-CXE4EIKLqidFw9aM3gGjSU~2v3zR53sPU47QgcCpNHqWjj6~nyrpMNMnDCzKA2XOB0CxUNXjG6IcgK0Gvs7fBLnNQapr2UxXsLhWPEurqiNyx9b-8a6ssdAttdKZULOszAQcZPxWpbC2U2ofCmwLLKZS8CCWX0vO6S-~Lqzf3wPXtMvEOIw5IfFgBujpJ5u0JCRfHbz9o793nrIktiUrLVL74n8Kzp7BtSO4Pm2npEsLtdCUzQ~gALkS4cTbPPx7dnRAeJ98kzDAloNR4okC7KqaxwDtZBhaTNjY~TCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Substitute Senate Bill 5758, intended to ease siting restrictions for cannabis retailers licensed through the state’s social equity program, was heard by the Consumer Protection & Business Committee on March 19. The bill would prohibit a city, town, or county from requiring social-equity program retail licensees to locate more than 250 feet from the premises of another licensed cannabis retailer.

Committee staff explained the proposal. Peter Clodfelter told members that Washington law already limits where cannabis businesses may locate relative to schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, parks and other sensitive facilities — typically a 1,000-foot default distance, with some local reductions allowed for non-school sites — but state law does not set a distance limit between retailers. By contrast, local jurisdictions have adopted a range of retailer-to-retailer restrictions: the city of Everett uses 2,500 feet, Seattle and Bellevue 1,000 feet, and Vancouver 300 feet.

Senator Rebecca Saldana, the bill’s sponsor, said the social equity program began licensing in 2024 but many awardees cannot find compliant locations under local rules. \"We have right now 11 that have found locations, but there's many that have been challenged,\" she told the committee, arguing the cap would help licensees open in the communities where they received approvals.

Industry and equity advocates testified in support. Caitlin Ryan, executive director of the Cannabis Alliance, said the Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) reported that of 40 issued social equity licenses, 32 were still struggling to find a location and that the principal obstacle was local distance requirements. \"These policies have made it nearly impossible for new businesses to find compliant spaces, essentially halting the execution of the social equity program,\" Ryan said. Representatives of Black Excellence in Cannabis testified that lowering buffers is one step toward redressing historic exclusion of Black and Brown entrepreneurs from the regulated market.

Committee members raised concerns about preemption of local land-use control and whether reduced buffers could create clustering or conflict with local moratoria. Senator Saldana said the bill is narrow and that cities and counties retain numerous zoning and public-safety controls; she told the committee that local officials she had consulted did not register opposition. Representative Ryu and others suggested the committee could consider more fine-grained changes, such as accounting for physical barriers between sites or differentiating buffers for schools and playgrounds.

The staff briefing noted the LCB completed rulemaking updates to the social equity program in January 2025 and that a first licensing round had issued licenses in 2024; several approved applicants have not yet opened because they cannot secure compliant sites. The committee received remote public testimony from industry groups and equity advocates; no formal vote was taken during the hearing.

The committee closed the public hearing on SB 5758 after the recorded testimony. Any amendments or committee action would be decided in subsequent legislative steps.","Substitute Senate Bill 5758, capping local distance requirements so social-equity cannabis retailers cannot be forced further than 250 feet from another retailer, was the subject of a public hearing March 19 before the Consumer Protection & Business Committee.",{"_32":88,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":89,"_40":90,"_42":91,"_44":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6120837,"Senate memorial asks Congress to reinstate Glass-Steagall banking separation",460,3211000,3671000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2705978-9d56904cb8aaa1832f660ac72ed26046&start=3211&end=3671","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2705978-9d56904cb8aaa1832f660ac72ed26046/thumbnail_3211000.jpg","/articles/6120837/Washington/Senate-memorial-asks-Congress-to-reinstate-Glass-Steagall-banking-separation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120837-0fd41be331f3cc325a4e9083670bc103/orig.mp4?Expires=1769686140&Signature=evTVGastwPGSgnRmsFzQOPORKGga74zQwqtljjJP0Gts7km2PRlPysNKPlyjqK18JeMVrEfIo7u26BHxi9drhgmwXxX-sjkr6C2bzP2rIocf83EXmhwL~AOwU1y0oSfepkzvj-wT2-43Wq40k~6MEfGSWEQdjeSrlf9e-82jVBkHSTXO2rn6phEdBEowQyLN4mj3Pc4hwfJTqzrw198DJvizfpBEPbX~IKIniqLCZX3Olym4FKGz3GEZU2eqrklWWOxgdYqb603Fm7zaFtqOuUCkwPopskfp3FQvXNsHRDe0B4Hl25v99JYY18ryXs4twKd1K7FpuJVWGPEeTcYvgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Joint Memorial 8005, introduced to request that the U.S. Congress reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking reflected in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, was presented to the Consumer Protection & Business Committee in a staff briefing and sponsor remarks on March 19.

Megan Mulvihill, staff to the committee, described the memorial in a short briefing: the memorial \"requests that the U.S. Congress reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking functions that were in effect under the Glass Steagall Act of 1933,\" and it noted that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed those provisions.

Senator Bob Poso (for the record identified as Bob Posagawa in the hearing) framed the memorial as partly educational and partly a state-level policy signal to Washington’s congressional delegation. He recounted Glass-Steagall's historical purpose: to prevent banks from using depositors' savings for speculative investments and to protect depositors after the 1929 crash. \"What they were trying to do was protect depositors from potential losses through stock speculation,\" the sponsor said, and he argued the repeal set the stage in later decades for institutions that became \"too big to fail.\" The memorial asks Congress to consider reinstating those separations.

Staff noted the memorial is a request to Congress rather than a law that would change Washington state banking rules. No formal committee action was taken at the briefing; the public hearing record for this item closed with no additional testimony.

The item’s proponents positioned the memorial as an educational tool for the public and an organizing device for advocacy in Washington, D.C. Critics or alternate viewpoints were not represented in the committee’s public hearing record for this item during the session.

Because a joint memorial requests federal action rather than imposing state regulatory changes, the committee’s role was to receive testimony and register the memorial in the hearing record. No committee vote or final action was recorded during the March 19 session.","Senate Joint Memorial 8005 requests Congress to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act's separation of commercial and investment banking. Sponsor emphasized historical reasons tied to the Great Depression and taxpayer bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis; staff summarized the memorial's text.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to let insurance commissioner order restitution, expand per-violation fines

Bill would cap local distance rules to help social-equity cannabis retailers find locations

Senate memorial asks Congress to reinstate Glass-Steagall banking separation