Relating to the regulation of private passenger vehicle rental companies.
Summary
HB 1395 amends the Business & Commerce Code provisions governing private passenger vehicle rental companies. It expands the statutory definition of a “rental agreement” and “rental company” by changing the covered rental period from 30 days or less to 180 days or less, while continuing to exclude certain licensed dealers whose primary business is not vehicle rental. The bill also adds a new requirement that rental companies refund damage waiver charges for any period beyond the days the waiver was actually in effect, in two situations: when a renter returns the vehicle early, or when the renter cancels the waiver before the anticipated return date and the company confirms the vehicle was not damaged before cancellation.
The bill applies prospectively only to rental agreements entered into on or after September 1, 2025. Existing agreements would remain governed by prior law. In practical terms, the measure would alter the contractual and consumer-protection rules for longer-term private passenger vehicle rentals and would require rental companies to adjust billing practices for damage waiver coverage.
Impact
HB 1395 would change Chapter 91 of the Business & Commerce Code by broadening the scope of regulated private passenger vehicle rentals from short-term rentals to rentals lasting up to 180 days and by creating an express refund obligation for unused damage waiver charges. The bill would affect rental companies, renters, and potentially auto dealers or other businesses that rent vehicles but are excluded from the definition if their primary business is not rental. It would also require companies to review rental agreement terms, waiver billing systems, and refund procedures for compliance starting with contracts executed on or after the effective date.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was treated as a consumer- and industry-regulation measure rather than a highly controversial proposal. There are no recorded committee transcript snippets or vote details in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of strong support or opposition in debate. The fact that it was laid on the table subject to call indicates it did not advance immediately, but the record provided does not explain why.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the expanded 180-day definition of covered rental agreements and the mandatory refund of damage waiver charges. Rental companies may view the refund requirement as an added administrative and financial burden, especially for early returns and waiver cancellations, while consumer advocates would likely see it as preventing charges for coverage that was not provided. Another possible issue is the bill’s interaction with businesses that rent vehicles but are primarily auto dealers, since the definition continues to exclude some licensed Chapter 2301 dealers from the rental-company category.
Restricts private vehicle property damage insurance coverage for a rental passenger vehicle, to the named insured and drivers on that private policy, unless the designated driver is specifically excluded.
Restricts private vehicle property damage insurance coverage for a rental passenger vehicle, to the named insured and drivers listed on that private policy, unless the designated driver is specifically excluded.