House advances ‘stated value’ homeowners-insurance language after floor debate; opponents seek conference to fix drafting

Representative Breaux brought House Bill 356 to the floor to create a statutory option for insurers to offer a “stated value” homeowners policy — an alternative to traditional replacement-cost coverage that would allow an owner to insure a home for a lower, agreed amount.

Breaux said the measure provides a product option intended to expand consumer choice amid high homeowners insurance costs along the Gulf Coast. “I move to concur the amendments on the Senate side,” Breaux said during floor debate.

Lawmakers pressed the sponsor on drafting details. Representative Jeremy Furman said the bill contains multiple technical problems that risk producing outcomes opposite the sponsor’s intent: title language allegedly still reads like a mandatory requirement; the bill’s definitions tie coverage to assessed “fair market value” rather than replacement cost; the notification requirement may apply only when the policy limit equals an unpaid mortgage balance; the requirement to notify by mail, email or other means could be impossible to administer; and lienholders other than mortgagees may lack protection. Furman urged the sponsor to send the measure to conference to correct those issues before it advances.

Representative Furman: “The state constitution requires that the title and the language of the bill be aligned,” and the sponsor’s changes may create unintended consequences, he said on the floor.

Other members asked technical questions about partial-loss claims, premium pricing and how the product would interact with mortgages and FEMA assistance. Representative Breaux repeatedly said the bill’s intent is to expand consumer choice and that insurers would define actuarial rates and policy forms; he opposed sending the bill to conference late in the session and asked members to concur in the Senate amendments.

Representative Glorioso spoke in favor on the floor, calling the measure “a consumer friendly bill” and urging passage.

Outcome: the House recorded concurrence in the Senate amendments on the floor and then opened a co-author roll call (27 co-authors recorded). The floor record shows the motion to concur was adopted; the transcript does not include a clear, unambiguous roll-call tally for final passage within the excerpted transcript. Sponsor Breaux said he did not want last-minute conferees and asked the body to concur rather than send the bill to conference at that stage.

Discussion vs. decision: the floor debate included substantive legal and drafting objections from members who requested conference to fix title alignment, notification scope, lienholder protections and unintended interactions with reassessment; the formal outcome on the floor was concurrence in the Senate amendments rather than sending the measure to conference.

Next steps and context: several members said they are willing to take the bill to conference to fix the drafting problems; others argued that reverting the Senate change (from “shall” to “may”) would undermine consumer protections. The bill remains subject to interchamber conference procedures if either house seeks it; members opposing concurrence said they may press for conference to address technical errors identified on the floor.

All quotes and attributions are drawn from the House floor transcript; the article does not infer insurer behavior or actuarial practices beyond what speakers described.