Bill would bar insurers from raising premiums after not-at-fault crashes; insurers warn of higher costs spread across customers

House Bill 148, introduced by Delegate Natalie Ziegler, would add a prohibition on increasing an insured’s premium after a not-at-fault accident to Maryland’s current statute that already limits cancellation or nonrenewal for two or fewer not-at-fault accidents in three years.

The bill’s sponsor, Delegate Natalie Ziegler, said the measure is “a very simple consumer protection bill” prompted by a constituent who was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer. Ziegler told the Economic Matters Committee the bill inserts “or also you can't increase the premium” into existing law to prevent what she described as the practical equivalent of cancellation when an insurer sharply raises a rate after a not-at-fault crash.

The bill’s purpose, supporters said, is to protect drivers who are not responsible for crashes from steep premium spikes that they cannot control. Colt Romberger, the constituent who testified about a March 2023 rear-end crash in Illinois, told committee members his family’s six-month premium rose from $643.59 to $1,337.12 — “If you do the math, that's a 107.76% increase.” Romberger said the insurer’s notice expressly cited the rear-end crash as the reason and offered an “offer to exclude” an insured driver to avoid the increase.

Consumer advocates pressed the committee to adopt HB 148. Michael DeLong, research and advocacy associate with the Consumer Federation of America, said the practice discourages people from filing legitimate claims and cited research showing average increases after not-at-fault accidents. Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland Fund, and Franz Schneiderman of Consumer Auto Maryland said the bill targets an “especially unfair practice” and would provide relief to safe drivers. Neil Dubovsky, representing the Maryland Association for Justice, said the change would prevent insurers from effectively “double dipping” — collecting premiums for coverage and then raising rates when an insured uses that coverage.

Industry witnesses opposed the bill or warned of trade-offs. Nancy Egan of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and Bryson Poppam, representing several mutual insurance groups and agents, said Maryland’s current law already limits insurer actions by using a three-year lookback and that the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) reviews rate filings to ensure they are not “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.” Gina Rotino of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) warned that restricting insurers’ ability to adjust premiums after claims could undermine risk-based pricing and push some costs onto all policyholders. Industry representatives also noted that Maryland law requires a detailed notice when a rate rise exceeds 15%.

Committee members questioned implementation details. Several asked how to determine whether a specific premium increase is attributable to the not-at-fault accident, and whether the bill would “freeze” a consumer’s rate at renewal or merely prevent the insurer from citing that single not-at-fault crash as the reason for a new tiering decision. Ziegler and witnesses acknowledged that isolating the cause of rate changes can be difficult in practice; some witnesses suggested regulators already receive notices from insurers that attribute specific increases to particular claims, but industry representatives said insurers may not continue to provide that level of specificity.

Testimony also covered market comparisons. Witnesses said Virginia and the District of Columbia have similar protections and that about 15 other states prohibit premium increases after not-at-fault accidents. Industry counsel and other witnesses noted the majority of states do not have such a prohibition and that changing Maryland law would alter how underwriting and pricing are applied locally.

No formal committee action or vote on HB 148 was recorded at the hearing; witnesses from both sides said they would provide additional information to address how regulators or insurers would separate general market rate pressures (parts, labor, overall inflation) from the effect of a particular not-at-fault claim.

Supporters urged a favorable report; opponents asked the committee to consider actuarial impacts, potential spread of costs among all insureds, and administrative questions about attribution and notice.