An act to amend Section 924 of the Insurance Code, relating to insurance.
Summary
SB 583 would amend Section 924 of the Insurance Code to raise the late filing fees imposed on admitted insurers that miss required financial statement or stipulation deadlines. Under current law, an insurer that fails to timely file required documents pays a $705 late fee, and if it continues transacting insurance without filing, it pays an additional $849 for each month or part of a month the delinquency continues. The bill increases those amounts to $800 and $900, respectively.
The measure is a targeted administrative change affecting insurers doing business in California and the Insurance Commissioner’s enforcement authority. It does not create a new reporting requirement or change the underlying filing obligations; it only increases the monetary penalties for noncompliance. As drafted, the bill is fiscal committee eligible but not an appropriation measure and would primarily affect admitted insurers that miss filing deadlines, as well as the state agency that collects the fees.
Impact
SB 583 would directly amend Insurance Code Section 924 by updating the statutory late filing fee amounts for insurer financial statements and related filings. The practical effect is to increase the cost of noncompliance for admitted insurers and strengthen the deterrent against late or missing filings, while preserving the existing structure of the commissioner’s enforcement tools. The bill would also increase fee revenue collected by the state when insurers fail to comply.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support and little controversy. The bill passed the relevant committee 7-0 and later cleared the Assembly consent calendar 37-0, indicating bipartisan agreement or at least no recorded opposition. The absence of committee transcript discussion also suggests the measure was viewed as a routine technical or housekeeping update rather than a major policy dispute.
Contention
No notable substantive opposition is reflected in the provided record. Because the bill simply raises administrative penalty amounts, any potential concerns would likely center on whether the higher fees are necessary or whether they impose additional compliance costs on insurers, but no member or stakeholder objections are documented here. The unanimous votes indicate that, at least in the recorded proceedings, the bill was not contentious.