Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Code Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee accepts technical amendment and hears Ohio Insurance Institute on broad insurance‑code changes
Summary
Committee adopted amendment 1268 by unanimous consent to substitute Senate Bill 306 and heard proponent testimony from Michael Farley of the Ohio Insurance Institute on towing and storage reforms, repair‑shop consumer protections, assigned‑risk plan underwriting changes, special‑purpose captive reinsurance clarifications and licensing of unaffiliated agents.
The committee took up substitute Senate Bill 306 for a second hearing and, at the chair’s request, Vice Chair Lang moved to amend the substitute with amendment number 1268; the amendment was explained as technical and, seeing no objections, the amendment was adopted into the substitute bill by unanimous consent.
Michael Farley, appearing for the Ohio Insurance Institute, summarized a range of changes in the substitute bill. On towing and storage, Farley said insurers would have 30–45 days to file an action to recover a vehicle, the bill would bar towing or storage facilities from adding new storage fees once an action is filed and would direct a court to penalize facilities that refuse to release vehicles; the bill retains a civil fine provision of up to $100 per day for violations. Farley said the changes aim to give consumers prompt access to their vehicles and to avoid additional fees after a vehicle is declared a total loss.
Farley also described new consumer protections for repair facilities: the bill would prohibit repair shops from requiring consumers to sign contracts that interfere with an insurer’s or consumer’s right to file an action (including statutory writs) or that force consumers to pay the repair facility’s legal fees for such actions. He said the bill would bar assignment of benefits or powers of attorney that shift decision‑making away from the consumer.
Other provisions discussed included clarifying electronic‑signature rules, modifications to the assigned‑risk market to require a submitting agent to attest to the accuracy of applications and to allow the plan to underwrite more like a traditional insurer, changes to permit certain special‑purpose financial captive transactions for reinsurance credit, and language allowing licensure of unaffiliated agents who pass the Series 65 exam and meet conduct standards.
Farley characterized the substitute as maintenance of the insurance code to keep Ohio’s regulatory market current. The committee concluded the hearing and the chair asked members to review three pieces of written proponent testimony submitted for the record.
