Committee advances substitute for bill to mandate uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and remove offset

The committee advanced a committee substitute for House Bill 97, a measure to require uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and to change how that coverage is applied so policyholders actually receive the benefit they purchase.

Representative Anna Norton presented the committee substitute and said the measure was revised to match a Senate companion bill. Officials from the Office of Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) and other witnesses described how current law permits an offset that can effectively nullify underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits when crash-at-fault drivers carry minimum liability limits.

"With the old definition, that statute allows an offset of whatever an insured wrongdoer has in liability coverage," said a representative for the bill. Several witnesses described the existing UIM offset as creating "illusory" coverage: a policyholder can pay for UIM protection yet receive nothing if the at-fault driver has the same minimum limits. The substitute removes that offset, presenters said, so the insured's UIM benefit will apply when the at-fault driver’s liability is insufficient to cover damages.

The Office of Superintendent of Insurance provided actuarial context. OSI testimony said about 90% of insured drivers would see no premium increase, roughly 7% would see a small increase, and about 3% of policyholders—those carrying only minimum liability with minimal UIM limits today—would see the largest average increases (OSI described that group’s average premium increase as about 43% in examples offered). OSI staff and the bill’s presenters said the change is intended to ensure that people who carry UIM protection actually receive it when another driver's liability is inadequate.

Committee members debated the trade-offs. Representative Armstrong and Representative Brown expressed concern that mandating additional coverage increases costs for law-abiding drivers; Representative Brown and others pressed on whether administrative rulemaking or legislative language is the right path. Representative Lundstrom, Representative Dowell and others asked for clearer visual aids and flowcharts to explain how offset removal works in practice and how the change compares to other states; presenters said 20 jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia) have mandated UIM coverage in some form.

Questions focused on consumer cost and behavior: whether the mandate would push some low‑income drivers to drop insurance altogether, whether insurers would compete on price for the newly mandated benefit, and how premium increases would be distributed across policyholders. OSI and other presenters said the product is typically sold as a bundled UIM/uninsured motorist benefit and that administrative rules and carrier pricing will determine individual premiums. Presenters also said criminal penalties for driving uninsured already exist and that a database and enforcement mechanisms are used to detect uninsured drivers.

Representative Brown moved and the committee adopted the committee substitute (committee sub) for discussion and later voted to advance the committee substitute out of committee. Several committee members asked the bill sponsor to return with simplified charts to help members and the public understand the coverage changes and the projected premium impacts.

The committee advanced HB97 with the committee substitute; presenters said the change removes an offset that has allowed insured drivers to pay for UIM coverage and receive little or no practical benefit when the at-fault party carries minimum liability limits.