Lengthy hearing on telematics oversight exposes split between consumer advocates and insurers
Loading...
Summary
SB351 would require insurers to disclose telematics data used for pricing, create a dispute/appeals path for insureds, and give the Maryland Insurance Administration clearer oversight; MIA and consumer groups supported transparency while industry groups warned the bill could reduce telematics options and raise costs.
Sen. Alonzo Washington told the committee SB351 seeks to require insurers that use telematics to disclose the specific data collection and give policyholders access to the underlying data, plus an avenue to contest errors and stronger MIA oversight. "This bill just requires insurance to disclose that data... and establishes a process to correct the appeal," he said, pointing to a recent MIA market report showing mixed outcomes for participants.
Jamie Sexton from the Maryland Insurance Administration supported the bill's transparency and appeals provisions and said MIA will develop regulations limiting types/amounts of data collection and requiring governance plans. "This right to know will empower consumers to understand how their insurance rates may be influenced by this data," Sexton said.
Industry witnesses from APCIA, NAMIC and major carriers opposed the bill in part, saying it would impose some of the most stringent telematics constraints in the nation, possibly prompting companies to stop offering telematics in Maryland and reducing consumer choice. An industry representative said the MIA study evaluated renewals and initial incentives and that program designs vary widely.
Committee members raised numerous practical questions: how telematics apps differentiate drivers vs. passengers, whether carriers can share or sell aggregated data, how mid‑term premium adjustments are handled, whether telematics‑only insurers could be blocked by the bill, and whether telematics data can be used for liability or discovery in litigation. MIA pledged to provide follow‑up details on complaints distribution, whether carriers share telematics data with other insurers, and enforcement mechanisms.
The hearing produced extended Q&A rather than an immediate committee decision; sponsor asked for a favorable report but the transcript records substantial opposition and requests for additional analysis.
