Steve Berch — Representative Church is referenced repeatedly throughout a continuous segment of the meeting, with the transcript repeatedly continuing his remarks. The discussion culminates in Church thanking the chairman and Representative Barbieri and urging them to look at the bill, describing it as a first step that provides information and an opportunity to appeal.
Steve Berch — Representative Church discussed the difference between non-renewal and cancellation, explaining that fire risk is a major driver of non-renewals and that homeowners should understand why they are being classified as high risk. He noted that the highest rate of increases was in Boise, Meridian, and Caldwell, referenced remedies and the availability of other carriers, and then shifted to the broader purpose of the bill: sharing information to help people keep their existing insurance and avoid non-renewals. He emphasized that the bill is a light-touch, prevention-focused first step meant to highlight a statewide problem and help constituents retain coverage.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch comments that low rates or premiums do not solve the real problem if policies are not renewed, because a zero premium is meaningless when it results in zero coverage.
Steve Berch — Requested to be recorded on the vote; transcript appears to have misheard the name as 'Birch.'
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri questions how the data would help determine an insurance rate and follows up by asking whether homeowners communicated with the insurance company and whether the company refused to provide information, focusing on access to information and its relevance to rate-setting.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri said he was struggling to identify a remedy for a homeowner who had already taken extensive fire-mitigation steps, including clearing the area and installing a separate water system, but still faced a high-risk classification and no premium reduction. He repeatedly asked what remedy exists in that situation.
Vito Barbieri — The speaker says they want to read subsection D to him regarding mitigation actions and insurer review.
Vito Barbieri — Asked Michael Kane to clarify what a reciprocal insurance company is.
Vito Barbieri — Expressed concern that the bill includes all kinds of insurance and said he will vote no.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri questioned witnesses about tobacco and cigar regulation enforcement, asking what constitutes an "unauthorized cigar," how compliance checks would work for a mobile cigar unit and its contents, and whether the Tobacco Project is responsible for enforcing FDA rules.
Kyle Harris — Representative Harris asks whether the highlighted state laws require insurers to make the information available on their websites.
Kyle Harris — Representative Harris is asking about the Utah, Montana, and Colorado laws on the handout.
Kyle Harris — Representative Harris asks whether the laws require insurers to post the information on their public websites.
Kyle Harris — Representative Harris agrees and then shifts to a new question about the handouts and cancellation reasons.
Kyle Harris — Representative Harris asks whether cancellations are due to factors beyond wildfire risk and begins a hypothetical about an older rural home.
Kyle Harris — Asked whether rising home values could be a reason for cancellations and non-renewals.
Kyle Harris — Was identified as the member who would speak further about the remedies.
Kyle Harris — Was referenced as having spoken earlier and provided handouts/notes that the speaker was responding to.
Kyle Harris — Was addressed regarding the handouts and data showing the issue is statewide.
Kyle Harris — Was addressed by Representative Cannon in the course of the question.
Kyle Harris — Asked how the Department of Insurance would handle the annual data collection, whether fees would need to rise, and whether the department is already doing this.
Kyle Harris — Asked why the bill is needed if the state is already posting basic insurer information such as coverage availability, exclusions, premiums, and mitigation discounts.
Kyle Harris — Pressed the point that the state already receives the information, questioning the need for the bill.
Kyle Harris — Questioned why insurers must post information on their own websites if the Department of Insurance already posts it publicly.
Kyle Harris — Was addressed by the speaker's response to his question about public website data.
Kyle Harris — The speaker responds to Harris's question about annual reporting and public access.
Kyle Harris — The speaker invites further questions and public testimony after responding to Harris earlier.
Kyle Harris — Kyle Harris questioned how much of the insurance premium increase was driven by replacement costs and related factors, then pressed whether the prior insurer was dishonest or whether fire risk contributed to the increase. He followed by citing his own construction experience to argue that labor and materials costs have risen sharply since COVID, making a 61% rate increase seem plausible and not outlandish.
Kyle Harris — Said the bill does not address the insurance problems and announced opposition to the motion.
Kyle Harris — Representative Kyle Harris was called on to ask questions and then responded in the discussion, noting a conflict because he smokes cigars while addressing whether permit costs would offset administrative costs.
David Cannon — Representative Cannon argued that the insurance issue should be left to the free market, noting that insurers and consumers both prefer policies to be renewed and suggesting that companies could gain a competitive advantage by providing information about how they grade risk. He asked why this would not be something the market could address on its own.
David Cannon — David Cannon’s concerns are discussed as part of the bill’s broader justification: first, his point is cited in support of the bill’s transparency rationale; then his free-market objection is directly addressed; and later the discussion returns to his concern in the context of carrier intellectual property, with the response that similar laws already exist in neighboring states.
David Cannon — David Cannon follows up on the discussion by asking whether the company Hall switched to won his business in part by communicating better with him.
Jaron Crane — His questioning is referenced as part of the discussion about carrier rate models.
Jaron Crane — Representative Crane first asks about the 40-year lease requirement in the definition of religious land, then offers to help the committee clarify the issue and support amendments, and finally moves to hold House Bill 801 subject to the call of the chair so amendments can be submitted and worked on.
Mike Wagoner — Mike Wagoner testified about the sharp increase in his property insurance costs and the difficulty homeowners face in getting clear information from insurers. He said his premium rose dramatically, described concern in the community about losing homes, and argued that things need to change through mitigation and better partnership with insurers. He also explained that he is considering property improvements such as a roof change, but believes insurer flood-risk models may be inaccurate for his property. He concluded by asking for more information from insurance companies so homeowners can better manage risk and reduce costs for everyone involved.
Dennis Hall — Dennis Hall testified about a sharp increase in his home insurance premium, saying his renewal went up 61% and that the insurer did not explain the increase or tell him what he could do to lower it. He said his neighborhood had removed over 300 tons of combustible material and that the fire department offers guidance on reducing fire risk, but insurers did not ask about those mitigation efforts. Hall said HB 618 would not stop rates from rising, but it could improve communication between insurers and policyholders. In response to questions, he clarified that the $1,234 increase was annual, that he switched providers, and that while premiums rise every year, he did not believe his renewal had actually increased by 61%; he also cited sources indicating home-building costs had risen about 6.5% to 7.5%.
Michael Kane — Michael Kane, board counsel for ICRMP, testified that ICRMP is a nonprofit risk management program serving only governmental entities such as counties, cities, and highway districts, not homeowners. He argued that the bill’s language is too broad because it applies to any fire insurer, which would include ICRMP even though insuring government property is fundamentally different from insuring homes. He explained that government-property rates depend on factors like building age, infrastructure, and contents, and that reinsurance pricing is tied to international markets and the fiscal-year timing used by his clients. Kane concluded that ICRMP does not belong in the bill and asked to be carved out, noting that the organization has about 700 members and roughly $22 billion in property exposure, none of it residential.
Elizabeth Criner — Elizabeth Criner, speaking for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, testified in opposition to House Bill 618. She said the association supports clear wildfire-risk information but argued the bill is overly prescriptive, would increase compliance and administrative costs, and could create confusion without improving transparency. She warned that the bill would require detailed disclosures, midterm rechecks, and prescriptive notices that add bureaucracy and IT burden, potentially raising premiums. She concluded by asking the committee to vote no on the bill and noted that answering some related questions would require more background and expertise.
Brooke Green — Representative Brooke Green asks about communities that cannot find insurance coverage, citing a Garden Valley town hall and seeking guidance on what affected communities can do. The discussion continues with references to her as the conversation turns to broader insurance market conditions, including risk, premium costs, and surplus lines.
Brooke Green — Representative Brooke Green is recognized after the closing remarks and moves to send the bill forward with a due pass recommendation, speaking in support of advancing it to the floor.
Brooke Green — Requested to be recorded on the vote.
Brooke Green — Representative Brooke Green asked for clarification on the proposal and compared it to existing mobile bar operations, suggesting that mobile cigar sales appear similar to a mobile cigar bar and questioning why they should be treated differently from mobile alcohol service.
Brooke Green — Representative Green said she liked the proposal and continued asking how it would work in practice, focusing on building height limits and setback requirements for multifamily development on religious land.
Brooke Green — Representative Brooke Green says she will support the motion if the proposed amendments are made, emphasizing that the bill needs cleanup. She also references a church-related housing example in northwest Boise as part of her concern.
Brooke Green — Representative Green questioned the bill’s health care provider definition, asking whether a clinic could selectively hire to ensure a woman physician or nurse is available for patients who prefer that, and then followed up by asking whether sex would be a prohibited basis for such hiring. The exchange was directly answered and clarified in the response.
Brooke Green — Representative Green was part of a brief procedural exchange in committee: she first asked a question to the witness about whether Dr. DeRossi currently practices in Idaho, and then the chair/committee followed up by asking if she had any further questions, whether her light was on, and whether she wanted to be recorded on the motion.
Ms. Criner — Ms. Criner is thanked after her testimony and her concerns are referenced.
Mr. Criner — A witness is thanked, though the name appears to be a transcription error referring to Ms. Criner.
Amy — Referenced as another person present who planned to speak about her business.