Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Insurers and consumer advocates clash over package of homeowner-protection bills
Summary
Four bills aiming to strengthen homeowner consumer protections (appraisal, arbitration, bad-faith claims and statute of limitations) drew support from contractors and consumer attorneys and opposition from insurers who warned the measures could spur litigation and raise premiums.
The House Committee on Corporations conducted a lengthy hearing on a quartet of bills (H 7515, 7516, 7517 and 7521) that proponents described as closing gaps in the appraisal and arbitration process, clarifying bad-faith causes of action, and updating statute-of-limitations rules for casualty claims.
Proponents included contractors and consumer attorneys who said the current appraisal and claims-handling processes can disadvantage homeowners, citing examples of out-of-state appraisers, incomplete repairs and unfavorable interpretations of color-match rules. "The appraisal process is being interpreted inconsistently, and homeowners are being short-changed," contractor Ed Ladicer said.
Attorney Michael Brady urged the committee to strengthen consumer protections and cited Massachusetts as an example where protective consumer laws co-exist with a functioning insurance market. Brady argued the bills would empower policyholders to demand appraisal and to obtain fair resolutions when disagreements arise.
Insurance-industry witnesses, including representatives from APCIA, NAMIC, and the Rhode Island Insurance Federation, warned the bills could foster excessive litigation, encourage assignment-of-benefit abuses, and drive carriers from the Rhode Island market—raising premiums and reducing availability. "This quartet of bills represent an unprecedented and unnecessary attack on the homeowners insurance market in Rhode Island," Jonathan Schreiber of APCIA said.
Committee members referenced written guidance from the Division of Business Regulation and the insurance superintendent cautioning about statutory overlap and practical consequences. Witnesses debated judicial precedent, arbitration practice, and examples from other states; the committee closed the hearing after hearing from proponents and industry opponents.
