Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farm Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to study a farm‑safety insurance discount gains support from insurers and farm groups
Summary
Senate Bill 21,157 would create a study (legislative management) on a farm safety program tied to insurance premium discounts. Sponsors and stakeholders said agriculture faces high accident rates and that a study could identify credentialing, curriculum and delivery models acceptable to insurers.
Senate Bill 21,157, a bill to request a study of a potential farm safety program tied to insurance premium discounts, was presented Thursday to the House Agriculture Committee and drew support from insurers, farm groups and university extension representatives.
Sponsor Senator Doug Shibley described a string of farm accidents in his county and asked the committee to consider a study to evaluate whether training modules could credibly qualify participants for an insurance premium discount, similar to defensive driving discounts for auto insurance. "It may be time to look for a better solution," he said, describing workplace deaths and serious injuries involving tractors, grain entrapments, auger incidents and chemical exposures.
Why it matters: Stakeholders told lawmakers that agriculture remains one of the most hazardous industries and that an incentive tied to insurance discounts could encourage broader uptake of safety practices. Insurance Department staff said the concept is workable but complex and that detailed study should include the insurance commissioner and the agriculture commissioner.
Who testified: The North Dakota Insurance Department said it supports a study and offered to participate; the North Dakota Farm Bureau, Farmers Union and the North Dakota Corn Growers Association also supported a study. Kristi Schlosser Carlson (Farmers Union insurance) said her company had previously offered a related farm safety program and planned to restart a similar program this year. The committee also heard from the North Dakota Medical Association and other stakeholders who recommended careful design to avoid unintended criminal or licensing consequences for medical providers.
Questions and design issues: Lawmakers and witnesses discussed whether a single course could cover the wide range of farm hazards and suggested modular approaches; participants proposed that the study include land‑grant research (NDSU) and representatives of insurance carriers and agricultural trade organizations. Several witnesses suggested using modular, risk‑based curricula and existing extension or insurer programs as a starting point.
Outcome: Committee heard broad stakeholder support and several members moved to place the topic on interim study lists; the committee did not take final action on a bill amendment or recommendation during the hearing.
