H6106 would create a new chapter in Rhode Island property law requiring owners and other responsible entities for large multi-family dwellings—defined as buildings with more than 12 residential units—to maintain insurance that covers temporary housing for displaced tenants. The coverage would apply when a building loses its certificate of occupancy or becomes uninhabitable because of fire, flood, an act of God, or another sudden occurrence, and it must provide relocation and temporary housing for at least 30 days. The bill also requires that the insurance cover reasonable costs such as rent for temporary lodging and storage of personal property.
The bill further amends the state’s standard fire insurance policy law to add a mandatory endorsement for multi-unit residential property. That endorsement would provide up to $10,000 per rental unit, without a deductible, for actual relocation costs after a covered loss, including hotel expenses, security deposits, first month’s rent, clothing replacement, furniture replacement, and other reasonable living expenses. Landlords must notify tenants of these benefits at the start of the tenancy, and any waiver in a lease would be void. Public higher education dormitories and residence halls may be exempted if the institution assumes relocation responsibility.
H6106 would also give the Department of Business Regulation authority to request proof of insurance, issue rules, and enforce compliance. Entities that fail to maintain the required coverage would face a civil fine of at least $1,000 per day for each day of noncompliance. Tenants would gain a private right of action to seek injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees if landlords fail to comply or fail to provide adequate temporary housing. The bill includes tenant notice rights, protections against retaliation, a transition period for existing buildings until January 1, 2027, and immediate compliance for new construction or conversions after July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment appears supportive and tenant-protective, with the bill framed as a consumer and housing stability measure for residents displaced by disasters or major building failures. The bill text and caption suggest a policy goal of ensuring that tenants are not left without housing after a catastrophic loss, and there is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials indicating organized opposition or amendment debate. Because no transcripts or votes are available, the public sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s structure and sponsor framing.
The main points of contention likely concern cost and implementation. Landlords, property managers, insurers, and condominium or cooperative boards may object to the added insurance expense, the $10,000 per-unit endorsement requirement, the daily penalty structure, and the private right of action. Another possible issue is the scope of the mandate, including whether the coverage is sufficient for longer displacement periods, how temporary housing standards will be set by regulation, and how the state preemption clause interacts with local housing rules.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 34 governing insurance for large multi-family dwellings and would amend the state’s standard fire insurance policy statute in Title 27 to require relocation-benefit endorsements for insured multi-unit residential properties. It would impose new insurance, notice, enforcement, and tenant-rights obligations on landlords, owners, maintenance companies, executive boards, and other entities responsible for insuring such properties, while authorizing the Department of Business Regulation to regulate and enforce the new requirements. It would also override conflicting local ordinances on temporary housing insurance for large multi-family dwellings, while allowing additional nonconflicting local requirements.
The bill’s general tone is strongly pro-tenant and disaster-relief oriented, aiming to protect residents who are displaced when large apartment buildings or similar properties become uninhabitable. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented public debate to measure support or opposition directly. Based on the text, the measure appears designed to address a perceived gap in tenant protection after fires or other sudden losses, and its structure suggests a policy consensus around ensuring temporary housing coverage, even if implementation details may be debated.
Likely areas of contention include the cost of mandatory insurance coverage, the size and adequacy of the required benefits, and the administrative burden on landlords, insurers, and condominium/cooperative governance bodies. Property owners may object to the $1,000-per-day penalty and the private right of action, while insurers may focus on underwriting, endorsement pricing, and the scope of covered relocation expenses. Another possible dispute is whether the bill’s 30-day minimum coverage is sufficient for major rebuilding events and how the Department of Business Regulation will define temporary housing standards and compliance procedures.