Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Policy Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Commons’s bill would bar insurers from forcing 'gun‑free' notices on property owners, sponsor says
Summary
Representative Commons introduced HB 12‑74 to prevent insurers from requiring property owners to post gun‑free signage as a condition of coverage or pricing; insurers and industry groups raised concerns about premises liability and rate‑making (Section 7) and the committee said it will work on amendments.
Representative Commons presented House Bill 12‑74 as a property‑rights measure, arguing that "property owners, not insurance companies, should decide what rules apply on their own premises." The sponsor said the bill is intended to prevent insurers from coercing signage choices by withholding or conditioning coverage, while preserving existing statutory gun‑free zones and owners' voluntary choices to post notices.
Insurance industry witnesses, including John Zarech of the Insurance Institute of Indiana, urged caution. Zarech said the bill raises premises‑liability concerns and flagged Section 7 — which would prohibit insurers from canceling, refusing to issue, refusing to renew, modifying premiums, or otherwise altering terms based solely on failure to post signage — as potentially interfering with actuarial rate making and insurer filings. He summarized the industry's worry that underwriting tools could be constrained in a way that affects the availability and pricing of products.
Gun‑rights proponents testified in favor. Kelly Myers (Indiana State Rifle & Pistol Association) and Charlie Hiltonan (Indiana State Rifle & Pistol Association, and an NRA board member) argued insurers have 'weaponized' underwriting against people associated with firearms and that the legislation would guard against that practice; Hiltonan cited personal examples of alleged cancellations.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on whether concrete examples exist of insurers conditioning coverage on signage and whether the bill should distinguish single private property events from high‑occupancy event underwriting. Several members said Section 7 as drafted may be overbroad (e.g., prohibiting incentive reductions for voluntary signage) and urged the sponsor to work with industry and consumer stakeholders on narrowed language. The committee indicated it would hold the bill for amendment to refine Section 7 and enforcement standards.
