The hearing showed broad agreement on one point — homeowners and owners are paying more — but no consensus on the chief causes or the best remedies.

Insurers and economists emphasized climate‑driven catastrophe risk, rising replacement costs and higher reinsurance prices; they recommended resilience investments, better DFS staffing for rate review and limited changes to market structure. Trade associations warned that suppressing prices risks carriers fleeing, as happened in Florida and California.

Trial lawyers and consumer advocates countered that litigation trends, growing third‑party litigation funding and what they call defensive fraud and abusive litigation — including staged claims and very large verdicts — are significant drivers that need remedies: more transparency on settlement confidentiality, disclosure of litigation financing, stronger consumer protections and bad‑faith remedies to deter delay. Climate advocates urged use of subrogation and AG lawsuits to make fossil fuel companies bear some costs for extreme weather losses, and asked insurers to account for property‑ and community‑level mitigation in pricing models (Colorado was cited as an example).

Lawmakers heard proposals spanning the spectrum: pilot singled‑out liability reforms for affordable housing, public reinsurance backstops, state‑seeded captives and grants for mitigation, expanded DFS data and model disclosure, and potential AG authority to pursue climate subrogation. Senators signaled follow‑up research and stakeholder negotiation ahead of the legislative session.