Consumer Protection and Labor and Employment - Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Setting - Prohibition
HB0148 would amend Maryland insurance law to bar insurers from increasing the premium on a private passenger motor vehicle insurance policy based on an insured’s claims history when, within the preceding three years, two or fewer of the claims were for accidents or losses where the insured was not at fault. The bill keeps the existing prohibition on canceling or refusing to renew coverage on that same basis and adds a new premium-protection rule for low numbers of not-at-fault claims.
In practical terms, the bill is aimed at preventing drivers from being penalized in their auto insurance rates for claims arising from incidents they did not cause, so long as the number of such claims stays at or below the stated threshold. The bill applies only to private passenger motor vehicle insurance and would take effect October 1, 2025.
The bill would amend Section 27-501(k) of the Insurance Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland by expanding consumer protections in auto insurance underwriting and rating. It would prohibit insurers from using certain limited not-at-fault claims histories to justify premium increases, while leaving intact the existing limits on cancellation and nonrenewal. The affected parties are private passenger auto insurers and Maryland policyholders, especially drivers who file claims after accidents where they were not responsible.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and assigned to the House Economic Matters Committee, with a hearing scheduled, but there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided. Based on the text alone, the bill appears consumer-protective and designed to limit rate increases tied to faultless claims, suggesting a favorable policy posture toward insured drivers. Because no testimony or vote data are available, there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials.
The main policy issue is whether insurers should be allowed to raise premiums when an insured has a small number of not-at-fault claims within a three-year period. Supporters would likely argue that drivers should not be punished for accidents they did not cause, while insurers may contend that claims history is still a relevant pricing factor for risk and loss costs. The bill’s threshold of two or fewer not-at-fault claims and its three-year lookback period are the likely focal points for any debate.