A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 26.1-40 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a prohibition on preferred automobile repair shops.
Summary
HB 1359 would add a new section to North Dakota Century Code chapter 26.1-40 to prohibit automobile insurers from steering policyholders toward preferred repair shops. The bill bars an insurance company from recommending, favoring, incentivizing, or otherwise communicating a preference for a specific repair shop or chain of repair shops when an insured vehicle is being repaired.
The bill also preserves a role for insurers in the claims process by allowing an adjuster to inspect the damage and make a repair offer. If the insured disputes that offer, the insured may submit an estimate from a repair shop of their choosing to support a higher claim amount. In effect, the measure is designed to protect consumer choice in auto repairs and limit insurer influence over where repairs are performed.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1359 would have amended North Dakota insurance law by creating a new restriction on insurer conduct in auto claims handling. It would have affected insurance companies, adjusters, policyholders, and auto repair businesses by preventing insurer steering to preferred vendors and by affirming the insured's ability to use an independent estimate from a shop of their choice. The bill would have added a consumer-protection rule within chapter 26.1-40 of the Century Code.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been framed as a consumer-choice measure, with its text emphasizing the insured's ability to choose a repair shop and challenge an insurer's offer. However, the bill failed on House second reading by a wide margin, 22 yeas to 71 nays, indicating limited support in the chamber. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded vote is the main indicator of legislative sentiment.
Contention
The central point of contention is the extent to which insurers should be allowed to direct or influence repair-shop selection. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing steering and protecting consumers from insurer pressure, while opponents likely saw it as unnecessarily restricting insurer claims management and communication with policyholders. The vote suggests the latter view prevailed, but no transcript is available to identify specific arguments or legislators.