Montana committee hears bill to require insurers to disclose wildfire-risk scoring details to homeowners

Representative Curtis Schomer, sponsor of House Bill 533, told the Senate Business and Labor Committee the bill would let insured homeowners request information about how insurers use wildfire-risk scores in underwriting residential property.

The measure would require insurers who use a wildfire or wildland‑fire risk score in residential underwriting to provide, upon request, an explanation of the score, the possible range of scores and what inputs were used so consumers can better understand denials or nonrenewals.

Schomer said the bill is a consumer‑protection measure aimed at increasing transparency for homeowners who suddenly find policies nonrenewed or moved to surplus markets after third‑party “fire score” vendors assess their risk. “This bill protects you, the consumer,” Schomer said.

Proponents described repeated cases in which homeowners were nonrenewed and had no information about why a score flagged their property. Bob Biskupiak, representing the Independent Insurance Agents of Montana and FireSafe Montana, said third‑party vendors use differing algorithms and that disparities have appeared where adjacent, similar homes received different scores. “The insured has the right to know and should know,” Biskupiak said.

Independent agents and rural fire district representatives told the committee they regularly get calls from clients whose policies were canceled after addresses changed or after model outputs swung unexpectedly. Chris Hindoyne, an independent agent with Rocky Mountain Insurance Services, said the bill would allow agents and homeowners to correct errors or pursue mitigation. “It gives us an opportunity to say your statistics or your information may be incorrect,” he said.

Industry witnesses, including representatives of State Farm and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, voiced support for the concept. Frank Cote, representing the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, said the office favors the bill. One opponent, Amy Grimales with the American Property and Casualty Insurance Association, proposed a single‑word amendment — changing an “or” to an “in” in a statutory phrase — to clarify the bill’s scope; proponents indicated they were open to that technical change.

Committee members asked how often consumers would request score explanations and whether insurers already provide any explanation today. State Farm’s representative said requests typically follow notice of nonrenewal and vary by company; agents reported receiving little detail today and welcomed a statutory path to a more standardized explanation.

No formal vote was recorded during the hearing; the sponsor asked the committee to “do concur” and the hearing record closed after proponents and opponents finished testimony.

Why it matters: supporters said greater transparency could help homeowners understand underwriting decisions and take mitigation steps; opponents warned the committee to limit unintended regulatory burdens. The bill drew support from local fire‑safety advocates and varied insurers but also prompted technical amendment requests to tighten statutory language.