Motor vehicle insurance; underinsured motorist coverage, revises language of required notice.
Summary
SB1159 revises the required notice that insurers must include with new or renewed motor vehicle liability policies in Virginia. The bill updates the statutory consumer disclosure language in § 38.2-2202 to reflect the current law on underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, including that UIM coverage now pays damages in addition to applicable bodily injury or property damage liability coverage, rather than after a credit is applied. It also preserves the existing notice requirements about optional medical, disability, and income-loss coverages and the ability of insureds to purchase higher uninsured/underinsured motorist limits.
The bill is primarily a conforming and clarifying measure: it does not create a new coverage mandate, but it changes the wording insurers must use so policy notices accurately describe the law and the insured’s options. It applies to policies delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, and therefore affects insurers writing auto liability coverage in Virginia, as well as policyholders who receive these notices. The bill also continues to require that any election to reduce certain coverage limits be made in writing and be binding on all insureds on the policy.
Impact
SB1159 amends Virginia Code § 38.2-2202, which governs the required notice of optional motor vehicle insurance coverages, by updating the statutory notice language for underinsured motorist coverage. The practical effect is to require insurers to use revised disclosure language that matches the current UIM “add-on” method of calculation and to continue providing notice of optional coverages and premium information. The act applies prospectively to policies issued, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, so insurers will need to update policy forms and compliance procedures by that date.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate 38-0 and the House 97-0, and committee votes were unanimous as well. The voting history suggests consensus that the notice language should be updated to conform to current law and improve clarity for consumers.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The main issue addressed by the bill is technical: ensuring the required notice accurately describes underinsured motorist coverage and the insured’s ability to adjust limits. Any potential concern would likely center on how the revised notice explains coverage choices and premium effects, but no recorded debate or dissent indicates significant disagreement. The bill also preserves the existing rule that a named insured’s written election to reduce coverage is binding on all insureds, which is a longstanding point of policy rather than a new controversy.