Bill to shield small speeding violations from insurers draws industry opposition

Senator David Clemens told the Senate Transportation Committee he introduced Senate Bill 2243 to change how low‑level speeding offenses are reflected in the state driving record and shared with insurance companies, saying the current system can cause significant, multiyear premium increases for otherwise low‑risk drivers.

Clemens said the bill would remove the single point currently assessed for 6–10 mph over the limit and would prevent 0‑point violations from being reported to insurers or made public, though the Department of Transportation would maintain internal records of those violations. “Traffic violations of 6 to 10 miles per hour over the speed limit are currently being reported to insurance companies and creating substantial increases in insurance rates,” Clemens told the committee.

Those testifying in favor described individual stories of out‑of‑proportion cost impacts. Ronald Sorum of West Fargo said his household’s insurance rose after a separate driver—insured on a shared policy—received a 10‑mph‑over citation. Sorum said the single citation produced an extra roughly $80 every six months per vehicle over a three‑year window, which he calculated at nearly $500 total; he urged the committee to stop routine low‑level citations from being used by insurers to raise premiums.

Insurance industry witnesses urged caution. Rob Hovland of the Association of North Dakota Insurers said insurers need accurate claims and violation data to price risk; he warned that if the state prevented companies from using routine citations it could force insurers to spread higher costs across broader groups of drivers. “If you take away a mechanism that’s part of the premium calculation or the risk assessment, it’s going to result in something being inaccurate,” Hovland said. He gave the example of Montana limiting gender from underwriting: the result was 16‑year‑old girls paying higher rates because the pool was rebalanced.

Hovland and other industry witnesses said the actual recent rate increases many consumers have experienced are driven largely by national factors—post‑pandemic inflation, supply‑chain and repair‑cost increases, and catastrophe losses—not only by individual minor violations. Several insurers also said different carriers use different underwriting tools; some companies rely on the state’s point system, others evaluate specific violations directly.

Legislators and witnesses noted the issue’s complexity and suggested the state should review the point schedule. Senator Dean Rummel and others said the point system has become “broken” over many sessions because individual violations and point values have been added in piecemeal fashion. DOT driver‑and‑vehicle director Brad Shafer told the committee the agency’s record system could be adjusted to reintroduce a split‑record model (so that some violations are shared while others are withheld) with modest programming work and a reprioritization of development tasks.

The Insurance Commissioner’s office and industry representatives invited the Legislature to consider a structured review of point values and reporting practices rather than a blanket ban on sharing all low‑level violations. The committee also heard that House Bill 1250, recently passed in the House and messaged to the Senate, would revert the record‑sharing rules to the state’s earlier approach; some committee members suggested the bills be reconciled.

The hearing closed without a committee vote. Committee staff and agency representatives said they would supply technical information, and members discussed whether to use the bill as a vehicle to study point values and the reporting regime.