HB2680 adds a new workers’ compensation notice and verification requirement for employers that report zero estimated exposure. Under the bill, a zero estimated exposure policy must include a signed attestation from the applicant stating that the information is accurate, that the applicant has no employees, and that the applicant will notify the insurer within 60 days if an employee is hired during the policy period. The attestation also warns that omissions, misrepresentations, or intent to defraud are unlawful.
The bill also imposes additional disclosure duties on construction and improvement service employers that obtain a zero estimated exposure policy. Those employers must give each direct contracting party a copy of the policy and written notice that the employer’s estimated exposure is zero, and the recipient must keep those records for at least three years. In addition, any certificate of insurance requested for a construction-related workers’ compensation policy with zero estimated exposure must include a specific statement directing the requester to a public verification website. The bill defines “zero estimated exposure policy” as a policy obtained after the employer reports total estimated exposure of zero, and it applies only to policies and related certificates created on or after July 1, 2027.
Impact
HB2680 would amend Arizona workers’ compensation law by creating a new statutory section in Title 23 governing zero estimated exposure policies, adding documentation, notice, and record-retention requirements for insurers, employers, and contracting parties. It would also create a standardized certificate-of-insurance disclosure for certain construction-related policies, subject to a conditional enactment tied to outside permission to modify the standardized form used in the state. The practical effect is to increase transparency and make it easier to verify whether a contractor’s workers’ compensation coverage reflects a no-employee, zero-exposure status, while also creating a paper trail that could be used in fraud prevention or compliance review.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in the House, passing the Commerce Committee 10-1 and the full House 55-1 after clearing Rules. The committee and floor votes suggest broad agreement with the bill’s anti-fraud and verification goals, with only limited opposition. The repeated committee-of-the-whole handling and the final near-unanimous House vote indicate the measure was viewed as a targeted administrative and enforcement update rather than a major policy overhaul.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to center on the added compliance burden and the conditional certificate language. Employers, contractors, insurers, or insurance producers may view the new attestation, notice, retention, and certificate requirements as additional paperwork and administrative cost, especially for construction-related businesses. The conditional enactment in Section 3 suggests there was also a technical or procedural issue involving permission to alter a standardized insurance form, which may have been a practical hurdle rather than a policy dispute. The lone committee and floor dissent indicate some concern, but the available record does not identify specific arguments or opponents.