AN ACT relating to the prevention of harmful and fraudulent practices.
SB153 is a consumer-protection and anti-fraud bill focused on contractor conduct in the property-damage insurance context, especially after storms, fires, and other emergencies. It expands and clarifies Kentucky’s rules for contractors who offer roofing, siding, water-damage restoration, tree removal, and other real-estate-related goods or services that are expected to be paid from insurance proceeds. The bill requires contractors to provide specific written disclosures before entering into such contracts, including cancellation rights, contact information, and a notice that the contract cannot unlawfully assign insurance-policy rights.
The bill also tightens restrictions on contractor behavior during insurance claims. It prohibits contractors and their representatives from acting like public adjusters, misrepresenting themselves as insurance experts, inducing damage to property, offering deductible rebates or other improper incentives, or filing mechanic’s liens for disputed insurance-related charges. It creates a special emergency-registration framework for contractors operating in declared disaster areas, allowing the Attorney General to require registration, proof of insurance and workers’ compensation compliance, job-site posting of credentials, and limits on in-person solicitation for 90 days after a disaster. The bill further links certain violations to criminal penalties by classifying some conduct as fraudulent insurance acts or criminal mischief, and it authorizes civil remedies, attorney’s fees, and penalties for injured parties and the Attorney General.
SB153 amends multiple Kentucky statutes, including KRS 367.620 to 367.628, KRS 304.47-020, KRS 512.020, and KRS 411.230, while also creating new sections in KRS Chapters 15 and 367. It broadens the state’s consumer-fraud and insurance-fraud enforcement tools, gives the Attorney General concurrent criminal jurisdiction over fraudulent insurance act prosecutions, and adds civil and criminal consequences for certain contractor practices tied to insurance claims and disaster recovery work. The bill applies prospectively to contracts entered into on or after its effective date for the contract-disclosure provisions.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the recorded votes, passing the Senate 37-0 and the House veto override 90-0. That unanimous support suggests general agreement with the bill’s anti-fraud and consumer-protection goals, particularly its focus on post-disaster contractor abuses and insurance-related misconduct. The fact that it was ultimately signed into law also indicates strong legislative consensus.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s restrictions on contractor solicitation and its criminalization of certain conduct that can arise in insurance-related repair work. Contractors may view the emergency registration requirements, limits on in-person solicitation, disclosure mandates, and prohibitions on deductible rebates or related incentives as burdensome or overly restrictive. The bill also raises the stakes by treating some violations as fraudulent insurance acts or criminal mischief, which could be seen as a significant expansion of enforcement power. On the other hand, supporters are likely to emphasize the need to protect homeowners, insureds, and disaster victims from deceptive or predatory practices.