Similarly, Hawaii's introduced SB 496 has a stated purpose of:

• Permitting a party to consent to the electronic delivery of insurance notices and documents.
• Requiring an insurer to obtain the consent of a party prior to sending a party electronic notices and documents.
• Permitting a party to withdraw consent for electronic notices and documents.

The bill's provisions also specifically proved that the electronic delivery outlined is considered equivalent to any delivery method required under applicable law, including delivery by first class mail; first class mail, postage prepaid; certified mail; or certificate of mailing.

A Look at Underwriting

As we have seen in past years, credit scoring remains on the legislative radar.Kentucky's HB 136 proposes to restrict insurers' use of credit information in underwriting or rating personal risks. The current bill text would require that such insurers not be allowed to base an insured's renewal rates solely upon the insured's lack of credit history or lack of a credit card account, without consideration of any other applicable factor independent of credit information. Furthermore, HB 136 would require insurers in their use of credit information to treat a consumer who has no credit history or no credit card account as if the applicant or insured had neutral credit information.

Similarly, Washington's HB 121 seeks to prohibit the use of credit history in underwriting and rating for insurance coverage related to a residence, while Indiana's HB 1073 focuses on prohibiting the use of credit information in the policy renewal process for personal insurance.  

More than credit scoring is turning up in legislative bills these days. Connecticut's HB 5628 looks to prohibit an insurance company from canceling or nonrenewing a homeowner's insurance policy or increasing the premiums based solely on inquiries made on, or a claim filed under, such policy that resulted in:  

• No loss coverage payment by such company for such claims; or
• A loss coverage payment by such company for such claims of less than $500, except that such prohibition shall not apply if the insured filed more than one claim resulting from a noncatastrophic event in a three-year period that resulted in any loss coverage payment by such company.

In a similar vein, Indiana's SB 276 proposes to prohibit insurers from canceling or refusing to issue, deliver or renew a residential policy solely because more than one claim has been filed under any policy of insurance issued by any insurer for damage to the property caused by an act of God.

Claims Provisions

In Indiana, SB 170 essentially seeks to protect innocent coinsureds. It aims to prohibit insurers from denying coverage for damage to an insured individual under property and casualty policies if that individual is determined to be an innocent coinsured.  A specific definition of an "innocent coinsured" is contained in the introduced bill, which also looks to establish adverse underwriting consumer protections for an innocent coinsured.

A Connecticut bill, SB 675, proposes a requirement that automobile insurers notify a policyholder when a claim has been filed against his or her automobile insurance policy. The bill would further require that insurers allow the policyholder to contest such claim.

In The Months Ahead

While the winter months may seem to pass slowly in some states, it is clear that even when looking at just a few quick examples of current state activity, insurance legislation is on the move and bears watching.