A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 38.2-517, 46.2-770, 46.2-771, 46.2-772, and 58.1-3524 of the Code of Virginia, relating to motor vehicles; insurance, highway use fee, and tangible personal property tax relief; application to certain vehicles.
HB1205 amends Virginia law governing unfair settlement practices in motor vehicle insurance claims, with a focus on repair and replacement choices. The bill prohibits insurers from requiring claimants to use a particular repair shop, service, or manufacturer as a condition of settling a claim, and it bars coercion or intimidation intended to steer a claimant to a designated provider.
The bill also expands disclosure obligations for insurers and their representatives. Before referring a claimant to a third-party representative on a glass claim, the insurer must disclose that the representative is not the insurer and is acting on the insurer’s behalf. When recommending a designated repair facility, service, or manufacturer, the insurer must disclose that the claimant is not required to use that recommendation, and must also disclose any financial interest the insurer or its representative has in the recommended repair facility. The caption indicates the bill also addresses highway use fee and tangible personal property tax relief for certain vehicles, but the text provided here only includes the insurance-related amendments to § 38.2-517.
As drafted in the provided text, HB1205 would strengthen consumer protections in auto insurance claim handling by adding or clarifying disclosure requirements and reinforcing the prohibition on steering claimants to preferred repair facilities. It would amend § 38.2-517 of the Code of Virginia, affecting insurers, third-party claims representatives, repair shops, and insured motorists or claimants involved in vehicle damage and glass claims. The bill’s caption also references amendments to §§ 46.2-770, 46.2-771, 46.2-772, and 58.1-3524, suggesting broader changes related to vehicle fees and tangible personal property tax relief, though those provisions are not included in the text excerpt provided.
The available context suggests the bill was not advanced out of the House Transportation Committee, as it was left in committee and no votes or recorded debate are provided. Based on the substance of the measure, the likely policy sentiment is consumer-protection oriented, aiming to limit insurer control over repair choices and improve transparency for claimants. The absence of recorded committee discussion makes it difficult to identify broader support or opposition beyond the procedural outcome.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between consumer choice and insurer involvement in claim settlement and repair networks. Consumer advocates would likely support the bill’s anti-steering and disclosure provisions, while insurers and affiliated repair networks may object to restrictions on recommending or directing claimants to preferred facilities, especially where insurers have financial relationships with those facilities. Because the bill caption also references highway use fees and tangible personal property tax relief for certain vehicles, there may also be unresolved or separate policy issues tied to those provisions, but the provided text does not include them.