S. 830 amends South Carolina’s automobile insurance issuance law, Section 38-77-122, to clarify that insurers may limit the issuance of motor vehicle insurance policies to members of a particular non-profit member organization. The bill also retains existing prohibitions on refusing coverage based on protected characteristics such as age, sex, race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status, income level, and residence, and on certain prior insurance history factors.
The measure preserves the rule that insurers may not deny auto insurance solely because an applicant previously was refused coverage, used the Associated Auto Insurers Plan, or has a lawful occupation, including military service. It also keeps the existing allowance for insurers to set rates using relevant actuarial data. The bill takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 38-77-122 of the South Carolina Code, narrowing and clarifying the circumstances under which insurers may limit the market for automobile insurance policies. Its main legal effect is to expressly permit insurers to restrict issuance to members of a non-profit member organization, alongside existing exceptions for certain professions, occupations, and religious sects. It does not remove current anti-discrimination protections in auto insurance underwriting, and it leaves actuarial rate-setting authority intact.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support and little controversy: the bill passed the Senate 43-0 on second reading and the House 91-0 on passage. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the provided materials, but the unanimous votes indicate the measure was generally viewed favorably by both chambers.
Contention
No specific objections are documented in the provided record. The only potentially notable policy issue is the bill’s expansion of permissible membership-based limitations on who insurers may serve, which could raise questions about access to coverage for non-members of qualifying organizations. However, the unanimous votes suggest that any such concerns did not generate visible opposition in the legislative process shown here.