HB1502 would add a new part to Hawaii’s insurance code establishing minimum homeowners and residential property insurance protections before and after disasters. The bill requires insurers, for policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, to provide policyholders with a list of items that may be covered as additional living expenses when a claim is made, and it sets minimum time periods for those benefits after a declared state of emergency. In general, the bill would require at least 24 months of additional living expense coverage for emergency-related losses, with a possible extension up to 36 months if the insured is acting in good faith but is delayed by construction shortages or contractor availability. It also provides a shorter minimum two-week living expense period, with possible extensions, for certain emergency-related civil authority restrictions.
The bill also addresses contents coverage and replacement-cost claims after total losses. For a furnished primary dwelling that is a total loss during a declared emergency, the insurer would have to offer contents coverage equal to at least 30 percent of the dwelling coverage limit, up to $250,000, without requiring an itemized contents claim. In addition, the bill would prevent insurers from denying building code upgrade costs or extended replacement cost benefits simply because the policyholder rebuilds or buys a replacement home at a different location, so long as the policy otherwise covers those benefits. It would also give policyholders at least 36 months, plus limited extensions, to submit receipts and invoices to collect full replacement cost benefits.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to create new mandatory consumer protections in chapter 431, Hawaii Revised Statutes, applicable to property and casualty insurance policies issued or renewed on or after the effective date. It would standardize post-disaster claims handling, limit how insurers can restrict additional living expense and replacement-cost benefits, and require more generous timelines for policyholders recovering from emergency-related losses. The bill expressly excludes utility public safety power shutdown events from the additional living expense provisions.
Overall sentiment appears favorable toward stronger disaster-related insurance protections, as reflected by the bill’s detailed consumer-oriented requirements and the report title describing pre- and post-disaster protections. However, there is no committee transcript or voting history available in the provided materials, so there is no recorded debate to show support or opposition from specific stakeholders. The bill text itself suggests a policy goal of reducing hardship for homeowners after disasters, while still preserving policy limits and some insurer discretion through “subject to other policy provisions” language.
Notable points of potential contention include the length of required coverage periods, the mandatory contents-payment formula without an itemized claim, and the restriction on insurers’ ability to deny benefits when a homeowner relocates after a total loss. Insurers may also view the bill as increasing claim exposure and administrative obligations, while policyholders and consumer advocates would likely support the added time and flexibility for rebuilding after disasters and emergency access restrictions.
HB1502 would amend Hawaii’s insurance statutes by adding new mandatory standards for homeowners and residential property insurance claims tied to declared emergencies. It would require insurers to provide specified additional living expense coverage periods, offer minimum contents coverage after total loss, and allow extended timeframes for collecting replacement-cost and building-code-upgrade benefits. These provisions would apply prospectively to policies issued or renewed on or after the bill’s effective date and would directly affect insurers, homeowners, and policyholders recovering from disaster-related losses.
The bill appears generally pro-consumer and disaster-relief oriented, with its provisions aimed at helping homeowners maintain housing and recover financially after emergencies. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative debate to indicate formal support or opposition. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to strengthen protections rather than to narrow coverage.
The main areas of likely contention are the expanded insurer obligations and the length of required benefit periods. Insurers may object to the 24- to 36-month additional living expense requirements, the 36-month replacement-cost documentation window, and the requirement to offer contents payments without itemized claims. Policyholders, consumer advocates, and disaster recovery stakeholders would likely support these provisions, especially for post-disaster rebuilding delays and emergency displacement. The exclusion for public safety power shutdown events may also be a point of interest for wildfire-related coverage disputes.