Generally revise insurance laws to provide that the Commissioner of Insurance's office is not a criminal justice agency
HB 948 revises Montana insurance law to clarify the role of the State Auditor’s Insurance Department in criminal matters. The bill states that the department is not a criminal justice agency under state law and requires it to refer criminal matters arising from insurance regulation or fraud to the Attorney General, the appropriate county attorney, or another criminal justice agency with jurisdiction. It also updates provisions governing insurance examinations, investigations, confidentiality, and fraud enforcement to align with that referral structure.
The bill amends several sections of the Montana Code Annotated to preserve the commissioner’s authority to investigate insurance matters, conduct examinations, and share confidential information with law enforcement and other agencies under specified conditions. It adds language emphasizing that examination workpapers and fraud-investigation materials remain confidential, while allowing disclosure to prosecuting authorities and other agencies that agree to maintain confidentiality. The bill also includes a $250,000 general fund appropriation to the Attorney General for the biennium beginning July 1, 2025, to support enforcement of criminal insurance laws referred by the commissioner, and it would take effect July 1, 2025.
HB 948 would change how insurance-related criminal allegations are handled by shifting criminal enforcement responsibility away from the Insurance Department and toward traditional prosecuting authorities. It amends sections 33-1-311, 33-1-409, and 33-1-1203, MCA, to define the department as non-criminal-justice in nature, require referrals of criminal matters, and preserve confidentiality rules for examinations and fraud investigations. The bill would also create a new ongoing funding source for the Attorney General to handle referred cases, affecting the state budget and the division of responsibilities among the Insurance Department, Attorney General, county attorneys, and other law enforcement agencies.
The available voting history suggests the bill was not controversial at the committee vote level, as the House Judiciary Committee vote to table was unanimous at 20-0. However, the bill ultimately died in process, indicating it did not advance to enactment. With no committee transcript excerpts provided, there is no recorded floor or committee debate here to show strong public support or opposition, but the unanimous table motion suggests at least procedural agreement to stop the bill at that stage.
The main point of contention appears to be institutional authority: whether the Insurance Department should retain any criminal-justice role in insurance fraud and related investigations, or whether those matters should be handled exclusively by the Attorney General, county attorneys, and other criminal justice agencies. The bill also touches on confidentiality and access to investigative materials, including workpapers, criminal justice information, and examination reports, which could raise concerns from insurers or regulators about disclosure and from prosecutors about access to evidence. The appropriation to the Attorney General may also have been a practical issue, since it assigns state funds to support the new referral-based enforcement model.