A BILL to amend and reenact § 38.2-2114 of the Code of Virginia, relating to property insurance; use of aerial or satellite imagery.
HB1253 amends Virginia’s property insurance cancellation and nonrenewal statute for owner-occupied dwellings, § 38.2-2114. The bill keeps the existing framework governing when an insurer may cancel or refuse to renew a homeowners policy, including notice requirements, reasons for termination, commissioner review, and exceptions, but adds a new restriction on nonrenewals based on aerial or satellite imagery.
Under the bill, an insurer could not refuse to renew a homeowners policy based on aerial or satellite imagery unless the imagery is recent, the notice includes date-stamped images and identifies the conditions at issue, the insured is given at least 90 days to cure the conditions, and the insurer provides a contact and review process for documentation. If the insured shows the conditions were cured to the insurer’s reasonable satisfaction within that period, the insurer must offer renewal. The bill also preserves existing prohibitions on nonrenewal based solely on protected characteristics or certain other factors, and it continues to allow rate-setting based on actuarial data.
The bill would directly amend § 38.2-2114 of the Code of Virginia, narrowing how insurers may use remote imagery in underwriting decisions for owner-occupied dwellings. It would create new procedural and substantive limits on nonrenewal notices, require insurers to provide evidence and a cure period when imagery is used, and obligate renewal if the homeowner remedies the cited conditions. The measure would affect homeowners, property insurers, and the Virginia State Corporation Commission Commissioner’s review process, while leaving the broader cancellation and nonrenewal structure in place.
The available context shows little recorded debate or voting activity, but the bill’s subject suggests a consumer-protection orientation. Its provisions favor homeowners by requiring notice, documentation, and an opportunity to cure before nonrenewal based on aerial or satellite imagery. Because the bill was left in the House Labor and Commerce Committee, there is no evidence in the provided record of final committee support or opposition, only that it did not advance.
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between consumer protections and insurer underwriting discretion. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s limits on remote-imagery-based nonrenewals, arguing that homeowners should receive clear notice and a chance to fix alleged property conditions. Insurers may object that the bill constrains risk assessment, adds administrative burdens, and could require renewal even where imagery reveals conditions they view as material to risk. The bill also preserves the Commissioner’s role in reviewing compliance but expressly states that the Commissioner may not substitute judgment on underwriting, which may limit regulatory intervention.