Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Auto Claims Rental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks 7‑day rental protection after total loss; insurers say existing rules and processes cover many cases
Summary
Representative Steve Pearson introduced a bill aimed at guaranteeing a seven‑day rental car for motorists not at fault whose vehicle is totaled. The sponsor described a constituent who felt pressured by an at‑fault insurer to surrender a rental immediately. The Insurance Department said administrative rules already require some rental coverage and
Representative Steve Pearson told the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee that House Bill 434 responds to what he described as an unfair practice: an at‑fault insurer pressuring an innocent driver to surrender a rental and accept a quick settlement after being told the vehicle was a total loss.
Pearson recounted a constituent case in which the at‑fault insurer told the claimant to return the rental immediately and said the claimant risked storage charges and other penalties if the rental continued. “Asking for 7 days to provide a rental car is not unreasonable,” Pearson said, describing the bill as a narrow remedy to give drivers a short breathing space to arrange replacement transportation and resolve total‑loss discrepancy questions.
Insurance Department: rules already address total‑loss rental coverage
Emily Doherty, property & casualty counsel at the New Hampshire Insurance Department, told the committee the department enforces a claim‑settlement rule (INS 1002) that already requires certain rental coverage in total‑loss and repair situations. Doherty said the department is reviewing the entire rule set (the rule contained in the administrative code is scheduled to expire and be reviewed) and that current rule language includes a provision requiring at least five days of rental coverage after an equitable settlement offer is made in a total‑loss case. She advised the committee to consult the pending rule review and said consumers with claims difficulties should contact the department’s consumer services division.
Industry testimony and legal context
Allstate attorney Mike McLaughlin told the committee that claims processing can be complex and that damage, loss of use and personal injury are separate components of a claim; he said a third‑party insurer will not automatically issue rental payments until liability or settlement is established. McLaughlin said many claimants also elect to use their own collision/comprehensive coverage to secure a rental immediately and rely on subrogation for recovery from the at‑fault party.
Representative and committee questions
Committee members asked whether the sponsor’s scenario reflected a common practice and how the proposed statutory language would interact with existing claim processes. Doherty emphasized that rental coverage and claim‑handling timelines are already addressed in department rules and that some process variation is legitimate because carriers and claims differ. Several lawmakers flagged drafting issues and suggested subcommittee review to harmonize statutory language with the administrative rule structure.
Next steps
The committee closed the public hearing and indicated the bill will go to subcommittee for further drafting and to allow the department and insurers to align rule and statutory language. No vote was taken at the hearing.
Why it matters
The bill highlights citizen concerns about claim handling and the boundary between a claimant’s choice to use their own policy versus pursuing the at‑fault party. The department pointed to existing consumer complaint channels and administrative rule provisions; sponsors argued statutory clarity would protect consumers in high‑stress moments after collisions.
