HB 6967 creates a new regulatory framework for post-loss assignments of benefits under homeowners and commercial property insurance policies, effective January 1, 2026. It requires assignment agreements to be written, signed, contain specific disclosures, include a rescission right, be promptly delivered to the insurer, itemize costs, and prohibit certain fees. The bill also limits assignments in urgent or emergency circumstances, voids noncompliant agreements, and bars assignees from shifting certain collection actions onto the homeowner or insured. It further establishes notice, documentation, and dispute-resolution requirements before an assignee may sue an insurer, while requiring insurers to make a presuit settlement offer or invoke appraisal/other ADR within ten business days of notice.
The bill also revises Connecticut’s home improvement contractor and salesperson laws, effective October 1, 2025. It expands and clarifies registration, disclosure, and contract requirements for contractors and salespersons, including updated application information, insurance proof, and restrictions on unregistered activity and public-adjuster-like conduct. It adds a prohibition on contractors offering to pay or waive any portion of an owner’s insurance deductible as an inducement to sign a home improvement contract, and it strengthens rules for roof-related solicitations and deductible-related advertising. The bill also updates cancellation language, contract validity rules, and enforcement provisions for home improvement agreements.
In practical terms, the measure would affect insurers, contractors, roofers, remediation companies, public adjusters, homeowners, and commercial property owners. It would likely reduce the use of assignment-of-benefits arrangements as a litigation and payment tool, while increasing documentation and notice obligations for assignees and insurers. It also gives the Insurance Commissioner new reporting and regulatory responsibilities and requires annual insurer reporting on claims paid under assignment agreements.
The general sentiment reflected in the committee vote was favorable, with the Insurance and Real Estate Committee reporting the bill jointly favorable by an 11-2 vote. That vote suggests broad support for tighter consumer protections and more structured claims handling, though the two dissenting votes indicate some concern about the bill’s restrictions or administrative burden. No transcript excerpts were provided, so the available record does not show detailed floor or committee debate.
The main points of contention likely center on whether the bill goes too far in restricting assignment-of-benefits practices and contractor marketing, versus whether those limits are necessary to curb abusive claims handling, deductible waivers, and roof-insurance solicitation practices. Insurers and consumer-protection advocates would likely support the added notice, rescission, and anti-fraud provisions, while contractors, remediation businesses, and assignees may object to the new compliance costs, limits on recovery, and the restrictions on deductible incentives and litigation rights.
The bill amends Connecticut insurance and home improvement statutes by creating a new section governing post-loss assignments of homeowners and commercial property insurance benefits, and by revising sections 20-419, 20-420, 20-421, 20-427, 20-429, and 20-429a of the General Statutes. It imposes new contract-form, disclosure, rescission, notice, reporting, and dispute-resolution requirements on assignment agreements, limits certain assignments after emergency work, and makes noncompliant agreements void and unenforceable. It also adds new restrictions on contractor advertising and deductible waivers, updates contractor registration and contract requirements, and authorizes the Insurance Commissioner and Consumer Protection Commissioner to enforce and implement the changes through reporting and regulations.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable committee support, as shown by the 11-2 Joint Favorable vote in the Insurance and Real Estate Committee. That suggests a prevailing view that the measure addresses consumer-protection and claims-handling concerns in the property insurance and home improvement markets. The presence of two opposing votes indicates some disagreement, likely over the scope of the restrictions and their effect on contractors, assignees, and insurance claim practices.
The most notable contention is between consumer-protection goals and the interests of contractors, remediation firms, and assignees who use post-loss assignments to get paid for repair work. Supporters are likely to favor the bill’s rescission rights, mandatory disclosures, anti-deductible-waiver rules, and limits on roof solicitation and public-adjuster-like conduct, while opponents may argue that the bill burdens legitimate repair businesses, limits consumer choice, and makes it harder to resolve claims efficiently. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s requirement that insurers respond quickly to presuit notices with settlement offers or appraisal/ADR, which insurers may view as manageable but assignees may see as too restrictive if paired with the new notice and documentation hurdles.