Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Insurance Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear wide-ranging testimony on SB 5,928 to force insurer disclosures on wildfire risk scores
Summary
Testimony in support and opposition to SB 5,928 focused on consumer transparency, proprietary model protections, appeals timing, and whether community mitigation (including fire districts) is reflected in risk scores; industry groups asked to narrow scope and OIC to standardize forms.
The Senate Business, Trade and Economic Development Committee held a public hearing on SB 5,928, a bill that would require property insurers that use wildfire risk scores or models to disclose specified information to applicants and policyholders and to post discounts and mitigation incentives on their websites.
Committee staff summarized the measure as a request of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC). John Kim said the bill would require insurers using wildfire risk scores in underwriting or rating to disclose the score, the factors that contributed to it, and timelines and procedures for appeals; the bill also exempts certain model documentation from public inspection as confidential and authorizes the OIC to adopt rules.
David Fort of the OIC testified in support, explaining wildfire risk models are built by private vendors using satellite imagery, claims histories and fire science and are used by insurers to price and underwrite properties. Fort said transparency would help homeowners understand what drives denials, nonrenewals and premium increases and would allow property owners to take mitigation steps that could reduce risk.
Tribal and local public-safety voices supported the measure. Patrick Tenaskett of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation said the work group recommended standardized disclosures to help consumers appeal scores and to recognize community mitigation activities.
Insurance trade groups raised operational and affordability concerns. Brandon Vick of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies opposed the bill as drafted, saying requiring proprietary underwriting documents and a 30‑day rescoring mandate could be impractical and increase costs that would be passed to consumers. Kenton Bridal of the Northwest Insurance Council and Christine Brewer of the American Property Casualty Insurers Association urged further refinement and stakeholder negotiation; APCIA suggested narrowing the bill to rate-setting and developing standardized disclosure forms through the OIC.
Local fire officials and climate advocates pressed for inclusion of local mitigation efforts. Mike Busse (Stevens County Fire Protection) said vendor models often omit fire-district input and called for community-level factors to be reflected. Jordan Hetler (ClimateCabinet Action) and Andrew Echols (350 Washington) linked transparency to broader resilience investments and argued clearer signals would encourage mitigation.
Business groups representing realtors and hospitality operators said transparency helps owners and asked the committee to consider adding commercial lines coverage to the bill's scope.
No fiscal note was available at the hearing. Committee members asked clarifying questions but did not take immediate action; sponsors and industry representatives indicated willingness to negotiate amendments.
