To Require An Insurer To Pay A Fair And Reasonable Service Fee Directly To A Fire Department For Firefighting Services Based On Time On Scene.
Summary
HB1868 would create a new Arkansas Code section requiring an insurance company to pay a “fair and reasonable service fee” directly to a fire department when that department responds to a fire within its district and the damaged property is insured. The fee would be tied to the fire department’s documented “time on scene,” defined as the period from arrival at the emergency scene until the scene is cleared. The bill applies to firefighting responses involving structure fires, accidents, and motor vehicle fires, and it is framed as compensation for firefighting services provided in response to an emergency call.
The measure would add a new statutory payment obligation in Title 23 of the Arkansas Code, shifting part of the cost of emergency response from local fire departments or property owners to insurers covering fire losses. It would require insurers to pay fire departments directly, rather than routing payment through insureds or billing systems already used for other emergency service fees. The bill does not specify a formula for calculating the fee beyond the “fair and reasonable” standard and the time-on-scene measure, leaving implementation details to be determined through practice or future rulemaking/litigation.
Impact
HB1868 would amend Arkansas insurance law by adding a new section to Title 23, Chapter 88, Subchapter 1, establishing a direct payment obligation from insurers to fire departments for firefighting services. The practical effect would be to create a new revenue stream for local fire departments and a new claims-related cost for property insurers covering fire losses. It would also formalize a statutory basis for fire-service compensation based on documented response time at the scene, potentially affecting insurer claims handling, municipal fire department billing practices, and disputes over what constitutes a fair and reasonable fee.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available record suggests a straightforward, pro-fire-department proposal with no documented opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s purpose is clearly framed as ensuring compensation for emergency response services, which typically appeals to local fire protection interests and supporters of public safety funding. Because no transcripts or vote history are available, there is no evidence in the provided context of broader legislative debate or divided sentiment.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the undefined standard of a “fair and reasonable service fee,” which could raise concerns among insurers about unpredictable costs and among fire departments about whether the fee would fully cover response expenses. Another possible issue is the bill’s reliance on “time on scene” as the basis for payment, which may prompt questions about documentation, billing methodology, and whether the fee should vary by incident type or department. The bill also shifts payment responsibility directly to insurers, which could be debated as either an efficient funding mechanism for fire services or an added burden on insurance carriers and, indirectly, policyholders.