Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bills on insurance subpoenas and settlement transparency; both cleared with amendments
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance SB 124, giving the superintendent of insurance limited subpoena authority for pre‑action investigations, and SB 220, which requires public posting of settlement terms and creates a loss prevention review process for large state losses.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance two additional measures with due‑pass recommendations and clarifying amendments.
SB 124 would grant the Superintendent of Insurance subpoena power prior to issuing a Notice of Contemplated Action so the office can secure records necessary to determine whether formal action is warranted. Superintendent Alice Kane testified the department has been unable to obtain some records voluntarily and needs the tool to investigate insurer nonrenewals and other market concerns. Committee members removed language that would have allowed the superintendent to delegate subpoena authority to staff; sponsors said they intended the authority to reside with the superintendent.
SB 220 requires that settlement agreements entered by state agencies be posted on the Sunshine portal within 30 days, whether the settlement was entered with or without the assistance of the Risk Management Division (RMD) of the General Services Department. The bill also requires appointment of an RMD loss‑prevention review team when a death, serious injury or other substantial loss (over $250,000 or as identified by the RMD director) is alleged to be caused at least in part by the agency’s actions. The committee adopted a clarifying amendment to ensure settlements are posted regardless of whether RMD assisted on the matter.
Supporters included the State Superintendent of Insurance (SB 124) and public‑interest and trial‑lawyer representatives (SB 220). No opposition was registered in committee for either bill. Both bills were sent forward with due‑pass recommendations; sponsors and committee members said they would continue to refine statutory text to ensure clarity and to avoid unintended consequences for confidentiality or ongoing litigation.
