SB 1644 amends the Texas Insurance Code to place new requirements on insurers that use credit scores or credit reports when underwriting or rating certain personal lines property and casualty insurance policies. The bill requires insurers to provide additional notice when an adverse action is based in whole or in part on credit information, including notice of the consumer’s right to obtain a free credit report, dispute inaccuracies, and, when applicable, request that the insurer re-underwrite and re-rate the policy.
The bill also creates a new Section 559.058 requiring insurers that use credit scoring to rely on a credit report no more than 90 days old when issuing or renewing a policy if the report is used to take an adverse action, to review and update an insured’s credit report at least every 36 months, and to adjust premiums based on the updated score. On renewal, an insured or the insured’s agent may request a re-underwrite and re-rate based on a current credit report or insurance score, but not more than once every 12 months. The bill exempts certain policies and situations, including policies already in the most favorable pricing tier, policies not using credit scoring, and coverage types that do not rely on credit scoring.
The bill’s impact is to modify insurer notice obligations and create ongoing review and re-rating duties for policies affected by credit-based underwriting or rating. It applies only to policies delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, while the act itself takes effect September 1, 2025. In practice, it gives consumers more opportunities to have premiums reconsidered when their credit improves and adds compliance requirements for insurers using credit information.
The overall sentiment appears broadly favorable. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a strong margin, indicating bipartisan support for increased consumer protections and transparency in insurance pricing. The recorded House vote was not unanimous, however, showing that some members had reservations about the measure.
The main point of contention is likely the extent to which insurers should be required to revisit credit-based pricing and how often they must do so. Supporters appear to favor more frequent updates, clearer notices, and consumer access to re-rating, while opponents may have been concerned about administrative burden, underwriting flexibility, or the effect on pricing models that rely on credit information. The exemptions in the bill suggest an effort to limit the mandate to policies where credit scoring is actually used and to reduce disruption for insurers and consumers already in the best-priced tiers.
SB 1644 amends Chapter 559 of the Texas Insurance Code by expanding adverse-action notice requirements and adding a new section governing the use of updated credit reports and credit scores in personal lines property and casualty insurance underwriting and rating. It requires insurers to provide more detailed consumer notices, periodically review credit information, and allow insureds to request re-underwriting and re-rating under specified conditions. The bill affects insurers, policyholders, and consumer reporting agencies indirectly through the notice and dispute process.
The bill appears to have enjoyed generally positive and bipartisan support. It passed the Senate 29-0 and the House 131-10, suggesting broad agreement on the consumer-protection goals of the measure. The small number of House مخالف votes indicates some concern remained, but the overall legislative response was strongly favorable.
The likely areas of disagreement were the new obligations placed on insurers that use credit scoring, especially the requirement to update credit reports every 36 months and to re-underwrite or re-rate policies on request. Critics may have viewed these provisions as increasing compliance costs or limiting underwriting discretion, while supporters likely emphasized fairness, transparency, and the ability of consumers to benefit from improved credit. The bill’s exemptions for the most favorably priced tier and for policies not using credit scoring suggest lawmakers tried to narrow the mandate and address insurer concerns.