Senators press Insurance Department on ability to curb high auto rates; advocates point to road safety and pedestrian fatalities

Lawmakers at a Senate Insurance Committee meeting pressed the Louisiana Department of Insurance over whether the commissioner can deem auto insurance rates "excessive," and how the department evaluates actuarial filings. Public witnesses and researchers urged the committee to treat road design, pedestrian safety and urbanization as part of any strategy to reduce premiums.

Authority and actuarial review: the central dispute

Nicole Torblett, the department's chief actuary, walked the committee through the rate‑filing and actuarial review process, underscoring that filings include detailed actuarial support and that department actuaries use nationally accepted standards. "The actuary reviews the filing and sends any questions to the insurance company by submitting written objections in SERF CERF that ultimately become part of the public record," Torblett said. She described how most disputes are resolved through requests for additional documentation or amended filings and noted that the department rarely outright disapproves a filing after dialogue with the insurer.

Legal authority and the word "excessive"

Senators repeatedly asked whether Commissioner Tim Temple can declare a rate "excessive" under state law. Claire Lamoine, deputy general counsel for the Department of Insurance, told the committee: "The commissioner does have the legal authority to deny rates in a competitive market when they're unfairly discriminatory." Lamoine said the statutory framework replaced the vague term "excessive" with objective actuarial criteria ("actuarially justified") in 2007 to reduce subjectivity and provide consistent standards.

Commissioner Temple said his statutory charge is to ensure rates are "adequate, actuarily justified, and not unfairly discriminatory," and described a tension in balancing consumer protection and preserving a market in which companies will write business. "I don't want to do is dissuade companies ... from doing business because of a discount that their actuaries say is not justified," he said about proposals to require a minimum insurer discount in return for state grant funds.

Public commenters: road safety and pedestrian risk as a factor

Outside of the statutory debate, public witnesses urged lawmakers to consider infrastructure and public‑safety interventions. Carol Fradland of the LSU AgCenter described statewide wind‑loss and home resilience work but noted broader mitigation priorities. Speakers from Louisiana Progress urged lawmakers to consider non‑litigation and non‑underwriting drivers of rate differences. Eli Levinson, a student researcher, presented national data showing Louisiana's pedestrian fatality rate (3.94 per 100,000 in 2022) and cyclist fatality rates (0.98 per 100,000) are higher than neighboring Mississippi (2.76 and 0.58 per 100,000). Levinson recounted a recent incident in which his father was struck crossing a Baton Rouge street and urged investments in lighting, lower speeds in pedestrian zones, and engineered street improvements.

What senators asked for next

Senators asked the department for more granular files and for analyses comparing actuarial outcomes with other states, and several members pushed for the department to identify data showing whether insurers are making outsized profits in Louisiana. The department said actuaries follow national actuarial statements of principles and actuarial standards of practice and that the NAIC profitability reports are a historical look that cannot be used alone to determine whether current rates are adequate for future costs. Department officials pledged to provide additional documentation and highlighted that many rate filings are public after the review process and that disputed documents labeled confidential are subject to department review under the public records law.

The hearing left unresolved the political question of whether the legislature should change statute to reintroduce clearer language or floors on discounts or profit expectations; senators indicated they plan more follow‑up hearings and requested written materials and actuarial exhibits from the department.