HF2235 is a narrow housekeeping bill in the commerce area that updates Minnesota Statutes section 45.0135, subdivision 7, governing annual assessments paid by insurers into the insurance fraud prevention account. The bill removes obsolete language tied to the timing of the assessment schedule, while leaving the underlying assessment structure in place. Under the amended statute, insurers authorized to sell insurance in Minnesota, including surplus lines carriers with Minnesota earned premium, must continue to remit an annual assessment by June 1 based on both total assets and Minnesota written premium from the prior fiscal year.
The bill preserves the existing tiered assessment amounts: $400, $1,500, or $4,000 depending on the insurer’s asset size and separately on Minnesota written premium. It also keeps the exclusions for risk retention groups and township mutuals organized under chapter 67A. In practical terms, the measure does not change who pays or how much is owed under the assessment formula; it mainly cleans up statutory language to reflect current law and remove outdated references.
Impact
HF2235 would make a limited amendment to Minnesota’s insurance regulation statutes by revising the assessment provision in section 45.0135, subdivision 7. The bill affects insurers doing business in Minnesota, including surplus lines carriers, by maintaining the annual payment requirement to support the insurance fraud prevention account. It does not alter the assessment amounts, the categories used to calculate them, or the entities excluded from the assessment, but it does update the statute to eliminate obsolete timing language.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is noncontroversial and technical in nature. The caption describes it as removing obsolete language, and there is no recorded committee debate, vote split, or opposition in the provided materials. That typically indicates general support for a cleanup bill that clarifies existing law without changing policy or increasing regulatory burdens.
Contention
No specific points of contention are shown in the provided record. Because the bill is a technical update rather than a substantive policy change, any concern would likely be limited to the administrative effect on insurers that pay the assessment, but the text does not indicate disagreement over the assessment levels, the funding mechanism, or the exclusions for risk retention groups and township mutuals.