Tennessee House Bill HB0621

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Refer: 3/11/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Engrossed: 3/24/25
• Enrolled: 3/25/25
• Passed: 4/3/25
• Chaptered: 4/4/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 56, Chapter 55, relative to motor vehicle protection products.

Summary

HB0621 amends Tennessee’s motor vehicle protection products law, found in Title 56, Chapter 55, to streamline the registration and renewal process for warrantors. The bill changes the annual filing requirement so that warrantor registration records must be filed annually and updated within 30 days of any change, subject to a new exception for renewals. Under the new subsection added by the bill, a warrantor seeking renewal does not have to refile a warranty that is already registered for use. Instead, the warrantor only needs to provide written notice of any change to the information in the original registration within 30 days, and that notice does not require a new registration application. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, and applies to renewals and notifications submitted after that date.

Impact

The bill narrows administrative burdens on warrantors of motor vehicle protection products by eliminating duplicate filing requirements at renewal and replacing them with a written-change-notice process. It affects the registration records maintained under Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-55-104 and clarifies that existing registered warranties do not need to be resubmitted when a warrantor renews, so long as changes are reported timely. The practical impact is on businesses that sell or administer vehicle service contracts, warranties, or similar protection products, as well as the state agency responsible for receiving and tracking those registrations.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House Transportation Subcommittee unanimously, then the full House Transportation Committee unanimously, and finally passed the House on the consent calendar by a 96-0 vote. The lack of recorded opposition and the consent-calendar passage suggest the measure was viewed as a technical or administrative cleanup rather than a substantive policy dispute.

Contention

No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. Because there are no committee transcripts, the specific rationale for support or any concerns raised are not documented here. Based on the text, any potential debate would likely have centered on whether the reduced filing burden could affect regulatory oversight, but the unanimous votes indicate no significant disagreement among legislators or stakeholders in the recorded proceedings.