AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 26.1-01-07 and 26.1-26-13.4, subsection 4 of section 26.1-26.8-04, subdivision b of subsection 1 of section 26.1-26.8-05, subdivision a of subsection 1 of section 26.1-26.8-06, subdivision b of subsection 1 of section 26.1-26.8-09, subdivision b of subsection 2 of section 26.1-26.8-09, and subsections 2 and 4 of section 26.1-27-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to fees charged by the insurance commissioner.
HB 1123 revises the North Dakota Insurance Code provisions governing fees charged by the insurance commissioner. The bill increases or standardizes a wide range of filing, licensing, renewal, appointment, and examination fees across insurance-related entities and professionals, including insurers, producers, public adjusters, life settlement providers and brokers, premium finance companies, advisory organizations, multiple employer welfare arrangements, and life or health insurance administrators. It also updates references so that several licensing and renewal provisions point back to the commissioner’s fee schedule in section 26.1-01-07.
The bill also preserves the commissioner’s authority to adjust fees upward after public notice and hearing if needed to meet the revenue appropriated from the insurance regulatory trust fund, while clarifying the refund process for erroneous payments. In addition, it ties biennial continuation and renewal requirements for individual producers and public adjusters to the revised fee schedule and maintains notice requirements for renewal deadlines. Overall, the measure is a technical and fiscal update to insurance regulatory fees rather than a substantive change to insurance coverage or market rules.
HB 1123 amends multiple sections of the North Dakota Century Code in Title 26.1, primarily section 26.1-01-07, to raise or revise statutory fee amounts and to conform related licensing provisions to those updated amounts. The bill affects the Insurance Department’s fee collection authority and the costs borne by insurers, producers, adjusters, administrators, and other regulated entities. It also clarifies that certain entities, such as nonprofit health service corporations and health maintenance organizations, are subject to the same fees as other insurers, while county mutuals and benevolent societies remain subject only to specified fees.
The bill appears to have been generally supported, with strong bipartisan approval in both chambers. It passed the House 80-12 and the Senate 40-5, suggesting broad acceptance of the fee updates and administrative clean-up. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote totals indicate that most legislators viewed the measure as a routine regulatory and revenue adjustment rather than a controversial policy shift.
The main point of potential contention is the increase in fees paid by regulated insurance entities and professionals, which can raise compliance costs for insurers, producers, public adjusters, and related businesses. Another possible issue is the commissioner’s retained authority to increase fees further if needed to meet appropriated revenue targets, though the bill also preserves public notice and hearing requirements. The recorded opposition in both chambers was limited, indicating that any objections were likely focused on the size of the fee increases or the scope of the commissioner’s discretion rather than on the overall structure of the bill.