House committee hears bill to require insurers to offer windshield coverage option

Representative Steve Vetter, sponsor of House Bill 1240, told the House Transportation Committee that the bill would require auto insurers to offer some form of predeductible or reduced‑deductible glass coverage so consumers could avoid paying full deductibles for windshield repair or replacement.

The bill's sponsor said the measure is intended to create an option, not a mandate that insurers make glass coverage the default. "The bill's intent is to have insurance companies offer just some type of predeductible plan," Representative Steve Vetter said during testimony. He said consumers could choose a low cost add‑on if they wanted lower out‑of‑pocket expenses for windshield claims.

The measure drew opposition from representatives of insurers and industry groups who said the bill would impose a new mandate and increase compliance costs. Philip Arnsen, representing the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), told the committee, "Our primary concern is that this is a new mandate on insurers." He said many insurers already offer glass endorsements or riders and that mandating a product could add complexity and cost.

Industry witnesses described existing market options and technical costs. Chris Owen, vice president of claims at NODAC Insurance Company, said his firm offers an endorsement to reduce the customer cost for auto glass claims and that many carriers already have similar products available through agents. Rob Hovland, president of Center Mutual Insurance Company, testified that involving insurers in many small claims can increase costs and that carriers and shops sometimes encourage customers to pay out of pocket for minor repairs.

Insurer witnesses also explained that modern vehicles can carry higher windshield replacement costs because of integrated driver assistance sensors and calibration. "Some newer vehicles have... sensors... It’s not uncommon right now for windshields to be over $2,000 replaced," Chris Owen said, adding that recalibration of cameras can add several hundred dollars per calibration.

Committee members asked technical questions about how a predeductible option would interact with collision and comprehensive coverages, how riders would be priced, and whether consumers would actually benefit if insurers offered a plan but did not market it. Representative Ben Koppelman asked whether insurers could technically offer a low‑cost rider and still claim most policies have higher deductibles; Representative Vetter argued competition would drive at least some companies to offer lower options.

The hearing record shows industry and sponsor conversations have continued outside the hearing room. Philip Arnsen told the committee NAMIC and the sponsor have been "productive" in talks and that he believed a neutral or supportive position might be achievable after further discussion.

The committee took no vote at the hearing and left the measure available for further negotiation between the sponsor and insurers. The bill drew detailed technical questions about statutory language and about how to define and require an "offer" without imposing advertising or marketing requirements on carriers.