Private Passenger Motor Vehicle Insurance - Collisions With Wild Animals - Prohibited Actions by Insurers
Summary
SB 551 would amend Maryland insurance law to restrict how insurers may treat certain private passenger motor vehicle insurance claims involving collisions with free-roaming wild animals. Specifically, it would prohibit an insurer from increasing a premium, adding a surcharge, or removing, altering, or refusing to consider a discount when the loss was caused by a collision with a free-roaming wild animal and the insured was not at fault.
The bill builds on existing law that already limits cancellation or nonrenewal based on limited numbers of not-at-fault claims. SB 551 adds a new category of protected losses, making clear that wildlife collisions cannot be used as a negative rating factor for private passenger auto policies. The bill is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 27-501(k) of the Insurance Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Its practical effect is to limit insurer underwriting and rating practices for private passenger motor vehicle policies by barring premium increases, surcharges, and discount reductions tied to not-at-fault collisions with free-roaming wild animals. The affected parties are auto insurers and policyholders, especially drivers in areas where deer and other wildlife collisions are common.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to have a consumer-protection orientation and is framed as a narrow fairness fix for drivers who suffer unavoidable wildlife collisions. The available record contains no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and bipartisan-looking sponsorship list.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether insurers should be allowed to treat wildlife collisions as a rating factor even when the insured is not at fault. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing unfair premium penalties for unavoidable accidents, while insurers may be concerned about limits on actuarial pricing and the ability to reflect claim costs in premiums. No formal committee debate or recorded votes are available in the provided materials, so specific points of contention are not documented.