Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates motor-vehicle insurance bill that raises liability limits and requires stacked under-insurance coverage
Summary
Representative Atkinson’s Substitute HB 14 would raise minimum liability limits, require insurers to offer under-insured motorist coverage and prohibit offsetting (stacking required). Floor debate focused on consumer protection, potential premium increases for fixed-income drivers, a contested solicitation clause, and declared conflicts of interest by several members.
Get email alerts on the Insurance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Substitute House Bill 14, introduced by Representative Kelly C. Atkinson, was presented and debated on the House floor. The bill proposes three principal changes: raise bodily-injury liability minimums (from $20,000/$40,000 to $25,000/$50,000), require insurers to offer under-insured motorist coverage and prohibit offsetting (so under-insurance coverage is "stacked"), and include consumer-notification language requiring insurers to make offers and allow for additional solicitations shortly after policy issuance.
Representative Atkinson illustrated the practical effect of stacking through a constituent example: a $45,000 jury award where an at-fault driver carried $20,000 liability and the insured had a $25,000 under-insured policy; because many policies offset the under-insured benefit, the insured would recover only $25,000 under current practice rather than being made whole. The proposed changes would let the insured recover stacked under-insurance amounts to cover losses more fully. The sponsor and industry representatives estimated that raising liability limits would produce modest average premium increases (estimates ranged from roughly $5–$15 per year for many drivers; higher for high-risk drivers).
Opponents warned that a mandatory increase in liability minimums could raise costs for fixed-income households. Representative Stevens proposed deleting a section requiring up to three renewal solicitations by insurers; the motion to delete that solicitation-language was put to a vote and failed on a tie, leaving the solicitation requirement in place. Several members declared conflicts of interest on the floor (noting roles as insurance-agency board members or agents). The bill remained under active debate at adjournment, with procedural motions to circle or consider amendments recorded on the floor.
