Committee considers vehicle value protection agreements; adopts disclosure amendment and suspends action for further drafting
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers debated House Bill 504 to legalize and regulate optional vehicle value protection agreements. The committee adopted an amendment requiring any dealer-return condition to be separately signed and then suspended action to allow further drafting of consumer-protection language.
The Regulated Industries Committee heard testimony on House Bill 504, a measure to authorize and regulate vehicle value protection agreements for Georgia consumers. Presenters described the products as optional consumer protections that can complement or differ from traditional GAP waivers.
An unnamed bill presenter summarized the proposal as providing optional vehicle-value protection products with required consumer disclosures, a 30-day cancellation window and financial backing to ensure claims are paid. "We'd be available to Georgia consumers," the presenter said while outlining the consumer-disclosure and financial-backing provisions.
Travis Moore, general counsel for trade associations including the Guaranteed Asset Protection Alliance, explained the consumer and market rationale: newer product designs give motorists ways to protect equity in a vehicle beyond traditional GAP waivers. "This is about choice," Moore said, describing how different consumers and fleet purchasers might find varying products useful.
Members probed mechanics and consumer protections. Questions covered whether payouts match replacement-vehicle costs, whether these products duplicate existing insurance riders, whether cost is typically rolled into financing, and how quickly claims must be paid. Presenters said payouts are commonly based on actual cash value, financial-backing provisions (for example, a contract-liability insurance policy) are required so consumers can recover if a company fails to pay, and the bill's disclosure provisions are intended to prevent duplicative purchases.
Several members raised a consumer-protection concern that a product might require a consumer to return to the same dealer to collect benefits. Representative McCollum offered an amendment requiring that any such condition "shall only be enforceable if it was agreed separately on a signed form laying out only such condition." The amendment was read aloud, moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.
Following discussion, a committee member moved to table the bill for further work; the chair elected to "suspend action" and directed the bill sponsor and counsel to prepare revised language and try to hold a quick follow-up meeting before the next Monday. The committee did not record a roll-call tally for the amendment or the suspension vote in the transcript.
