Prohibits auto insurance companies from using certain race and geographical locations criteria when determining insurance rates.
H5416 amends Rhode Island’s casualty insurance rating laws to limit the factors automobile insurers may use when setting rates, classifying drivers, deciding whether to renew coverage, or otherwise adjusting premiums and eligibility. The bill bars insurers from considering a wide range of non-driving factors, including education level, race, ethnicity, disability, occupation, income, credit information, gender, zip code, adjacent zip code, and census tract. It also directs insurers to rely solely on an individual’s driving record for premium and coverage decisions, subject to the bill’s other specific restrictions.
The bill also adds targeted protections for certain groups and situations. It prohibits insurers from treating widowed persons differently from married persons, and from penalizing drivers age 65 or older solely because of age if they have had no chargeable accidents or moving violations in the prior three years. It further limits the use of certain loss occurrences and small property-damage claims in surcharging, bars adverse treatment of volunteer drivers, and prevents insurers from using incidents involving bus drivers, law enforcement officers, and commercial vehicle drivers in their personal auto rates when those incidents occurred in the course of employment. The act is set to apply prospectively to policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.
If enacted, the bill would significantly narrow the underwriting and rating factors available to auto insurers in Rhode Island by amending chapter 27-9 of the General Laws. It would prohibit the use of demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic proxies in setting automobile insurance rates and eligibility, and would require insurers to base decisions primarily on driving history. The bill would also create enforcement authority for the insurance commissioner, including hearings, cease-and-desist orders, and fines for repeated violations, while preserving judicial review in superior court. Its practical effect would be to alter insurer rating practices and expand consumer protections for older drivers, widowed persons, volunteer drivers, and certain workers whose job-related incidents should not affect personal auto insurance rates.
The bill’s stated purpose and caption suggest a consumer-protection approach aimed at preventing discriminatory or unfair auto insurance pricing, especially based on race and geography. The available context does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of organized support or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to fairness and equity concerns in insurance underwriting.
The main points of contention likely involve whether insurers should be barred from using factors such as credit, occupation, income, and geography, and whether limiting those factors could affect actuarial accuracy and pricing. Another likely issue is the bill’s directive that insurers rely solely on driving record for premiums and coverage decisions, which may be viewed as too restrictive by insurers. The age-based protections for drivers 65 and older, the limits on surcharges for low-dollar claims or partial-fault accidents, and the restrictions on using job-related incidents for certain workers may also draw debate over fairness, risk classification, and administrative burden. No specific opposing or supporting groups are identified in the provided record.