Changes the process by which a dispute between the insured and their insurance company, concerning property damages and requires that the umpire appraisers shall be disinterested and the cost shared equally.
H6054 amends Rhode Island’s motor vehicle appraisal provision for insurance property-damage disputes. The bill revises the process used when an insurer and an insured or claimant cannot agree on the amount of a loss, requiring each side to use a disinterested Rhode Island licensed appraiser and setting tighter timelines for inspection and umpire selection. It also clarifies that the insurer may lose the right to inspect the damaged vehicle before repairs if it does not act within the required time, and it limits later disputes to labor, parts pricing, and other objective issues unless the insurer can show contrary evidence.
The bill further restructures how the appraisal panel resolves disagreements by requiring appraisers to exchange proposals, using a midpoint if the proposals are close, and escalating to an umpire process if they are not. It makes the appraisal outcome binding, allows recovery of certain supplemental costs for hidden damage or price increases, and provides that if the insured or claimant initiates appraisal and the final award exceeds the insurer’s original offer by more than 25%, the insurer must reimburse appraisal costs. The bill also defines “disinterested Rhode Island licensed appraiser,” allows mutual agreement to use a nonqualifying appraiser, and prohibits intimidation, coercion, threats, or misrepresentation of consumer rights during the process.
This act would amend Rhode Island General Laws chapter 27-10.4 governing motor vehicle appraisal disputes, changing the rights and obligations of insurers, insureds, claimants, appraisers, and repair shops in property-damage claims. It imposes new procedural deadlines, modifies how umpires are selected and compensated, and can shift appraisal costs to insurers in certain cases. The bill takes effect upon passage and would apply to insurance appraisal disputes going forward.
The voting record suggests the bill was generally supported, with passage in the House by substantial margins on both the amendment and the amended bill, and final passage in the Senate by a comfortable majority. The available context indicates lawmakers were receptive to clarifying and tightening the appraisal process for auto damage claims, especially around neutrality, timing, and consumer protections. There is no committee transcript available to show detailed debate, but the broad vote margins point to overall favorable sentiment.
The main points of contention appear to center on how much control insurers retain over inspections and appraisal selection, and whether the new deadlines and cost-shifting rules are fair to both sides. The bill favors prompt insurer action and limits post-deadline disputes, which likely benefits insureds and repair shops, while insurers may be concerned about losing inspection rights and being required to reimburse appraisal costs when awards exceed their offers by a set margin. Another possible issue is the definition of a “disinterested” appraiser and the allowance for mutual agreement to use appraisers who do not meet that definition, which could raise questions about neutrality and flexibility.