Public Health and Health Insurance - Access to Abortion Care - Reporting Requirements
Summary
HB1159 would add a new section to Maryland’s Insurance Article establishing a minimum acceptable loss ratio of 85% for property and casualty insurers. The bill defines the loss ratio as incurred claims divided by premium revenue for the reporting year, and it applies this standard during each policy year.
If an insurer’s loss ratio falls below 85%, the insurer would be required to issue rebates to insureds. The rebate amount would be based on the insurer’s premium revenue from the insured, adjusted for taxes, licensing and regulatory fees, and risk adjustment and reinsurance payments or receipts, multiplied by the shortfall between the required 85% ratio and the insurer’s actual loss ratio. The Insurance Commissioner would be authorized to adopt regulations to implement the section, and the bill would take effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would directly affect property and casualty insurers operating in Maryland by imposing a statutory minimum loss ratio and a mandatory premium refund mechanism when that threshold is not met. It would add new consumer-protection requirements to the Insurance Article, potentially changing insurer pricing, underwriting, and claims practices, and it would give the Insurance Commissioner regulatory authority to administer the new rebate system.
Sentiment
There is limited recorded legislative discussion for this bill because the hearing was canceled and no votes or committee testimony are available. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be consumer-oriented and aimed at ensuring insurers spend a larger share of premium dollars on claims, but the absence of recorded debate means there is no documented consensus or opposition in the available materials.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is whether a state-mandated 85% loss ratio and rebate requirement would be workable or overly restrictive for property and casualty insurers, especially given adjustments for taxes, fees, risk adjustment, and reinsurance. Supporters would likely emphasize consumer refunds and insurer accountability, while opponents may argue the formula could interfere with actuarial pricing, increase administrative burden, or create unintended effects on premiums and market availability. No specific stakeholder positions are documented in the available record.