Insurance; proof of loss; claims; property insurance; effective date.
Summary
HB2957 amends Oklahoma’s insurance claims statute governing proof of loss and insurer responses to claims. Under current law, when an insured submits a proof of loss, the insurer must issue a written settlement offer or rejection within 60 days, and the prevailing party in litigation may recover costs and attorney fees, with the insured also eligible for 15% annual interest on a favorable verdict. The bill keeps those general rules in place for most claims but creates a specific carve-out for property insurance claims.
For property insurance claims, as defined in existing law, the bill would prohibit courts from awarding costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party and would also bar the court from adding interest to the verdict. The measure is set to take effect November 1, 2026. In practical terms, the bill narrows the litigation remedies available in property insurance disputes while leaving the broader proof-of-loss and settlement timeline intact for other types of insurance claims.
Impact
HB2957 would amend 36 O.S. 2021, Section 3629, by creating a property-insurance-specific exception to the statute’s fee-shifting and interest provisions. This would affect insureds, insurers, and courts handling property damage disputes by removing two common litigation incentives—attorney fees and post-verdict interest—from property insurance cases. The bill does not change the insurer’s duty to respond to a proof of loss within 60 days, but it would alter the financial consequences of litigating property insurance claims.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote data, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition/support in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy choice favoring reduced litigation exposure for insurers in property insurance disputes, while preserving existing claim-processing rules for other insurance lines. Because no votes or hearing comments are included, the overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s introduced posture.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the property insurance carve-out itself. Insureds and their advocates may object to losing access to attorney fees and interest, since those remedies can help policyholders pursue underpaid or denied claims. Insurers, by contrast, may support the change as a way to limit litigation costs and reduce pressure to settle based on fee exposure. The bill’s distinction between property insurance and other insurance claims is the central policy divide, because it treats property claims differently from the rest of Section 3629.