Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects bill requiring workers' compensation adjusters to be based in Utah
Summary
A proposal to require workers' compensation claims adjusters to be based in Utah failed on the House floor after debate over potential restraint-of-trade effects and cost implications. Supporters argued local adjusters better serve injured workers; opponents warned of higher costs and reciprocal restrictions from other states.
House Bill 307, requiring workers' compensation claims adjusters to be based in Utah, failed on the House floor after a contested debate.
Representative Voigt, who declared a conflict of interest, argued the change would improve service to injured workers because in‑state adjusters can resolve claims faster. "An adjuster based in Utah would be able to operate faster with a greater feel for all the circumstances involved," he said. Opponents including Representative Stevens and Representative Valentine cautioned the proposal could amount to a restraint of trade, raise costs if out‑of‑state firms could no longer serve Utah clients, and might prompt reciprocal restrictions by other states.
Valentine said out‑of‑state adjusters can sometimes provide efficient service (he cited using a Boston adjuster in a personal example) and warned mandating in‑state adjusters could raise costs for employers and insureds. After roll call, the bill failed 31–37 and was filed.
