[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6372683,"mediaKeyId","2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214","parentId",2147338,"title","Committee considers restoring limits on what driving data insurers may access","audioSeconds",2082,"startMs",10890000,"endMs",12972000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214&start=10890&end=12972","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214/thumbnail_10890000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6372683/North-Dakota/Committee-considers-restoring-limits-on-what-driving-data-insurers-may-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6372683-15739620371add3a5210d38eb69e26a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191244&Signature=Nmz7ai0l1svt~A10Iz93BGZP7Qhd~l18CnfrDnH8Iwz9ujyqW4hUTZ74kuOOeecQnCewGMbqHQuNEKYhUAFTgbqja3LVSu9jkP2u5cVGFO7uKgoHjps~rfIJ1Kk4laSEIBtkFOyUGIGjDD12RNIA~AKv4ioZcyRXw0SqsZT1NsM5hCjR0jnnBYrrUI4MzemPVrvM~~Qmooqqw4l-hfGW3pp1XaaiimZfa-jXj4NPE4Rsb8q1EUoJ~ZHKJs4sLy5haQra8XEmzgLNwnjhGh3lSWvc7f9vGKoyfMgLgXd46V3E~fTg0mJ5gv1NoyNuyVf9eF9myrtjGpSdEfp2inBvrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Transportation, ND","date","2025-01-23T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Bill Twite introduced House Bill 1250 to restore statutory language that would limit the entries on a noncommercial driving record insurers may request and use for underwriting and rating. Twite said the change responds to constituent complaints about premium increases after an earlier law revision expanded insurer access to more driving record details.

\"House Bill 1250 simply reinstates verbiage that was removed... in 2023,\" Representative Bill Twite said, explaining the bill would again restrict the routine disclosure of low‑point or minor entries to insurers for noncommercial drivers.

Several motorists and local employers testified in support, describing difficulty hiring drivers and steep premium surcharges after insurers obtained more detailed driving data. Steve Walt told the committee he is \"uninsurable to go get a job in the state of North Dakota because I got 1 point against my driver's record,\" saying insurers increased quotes when they learned of minor record entries. Farmer and fuel‑business owner Travis Zablotny and restaurateur Kyle Sedovic described hiring struggles because insurers flagged minor infractions such as seat‑belt or tint citations or small speeding violations.

Brad Schafer, Director of Driver and Vehicle at the North Dakota Department of Transportation, told the committee that the bill would not change reporting for commercial driver license (CDL) holders; CDLs remain subject to federal reporting and the federal requirements continue to apply. \"This has nothing to do with CDL drivers,\" Schafer said. He clarified that the proposed bill would affect only noncommercial driving records.

Insurers opposed the bill, telling the committee that access to more driving data lets carriers price risk more fairly across all policyholders. Rob Hovland of Center Mutual Insurance said limiting insurer access would shift costs to drivers with clean records: \"If you pass this bill, drivers who have hits on the record will pay an artificially low premium. And drivers who have a clean record will pay an artificially high premium,\" he testified, arguing that salvage of risk information would make premiums less accurate and equitable.

Committee members sought detail on whether changes could be implemented technically and whether any restoration of the earlier rule could be made retroactive. Department of Transportation staff said reverting the reporting rules would be technically straightforward because code paths remained in the agency’s system, though committee members were told that information already released to insurers could not be recalled.

The hearing closed without a committee vote. Members asked for additional actuarial or insurer examples showing how the data change affected renewals and specific premium adjustments so the committee could weigh consumer hiring and workforce impacts against risk‑based pricing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Transportation Jan 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Bill Twite told the House Transportation Committee HB1250 would restore limits on noncommercial driving‑record entries insurers may access; supporters said expanded disclosure has made many drivers uninsurable, while insurers said access is needed to price risk fairly.","taxTitle","Transportation, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28897,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6372688,"Bill would ban insurer 'preferred' repair networks; insurers say networks help consumers",1502,8534000,10036000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214&start=8534&end=10036","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214/thumbnail_8534000.jpg","/articles/6372688/North-Dakota/Bill-would-ban-insurer-preferred-repair-networks-insurers-say-networks-help-consumers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6372688-22ebe4c6e923e3946088e836ca55bb7f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191244&Signature=G--wdiPbwI4TZj6OLAnUBIENvOYLyBmhRFQiTBq9fRqltuO9zUsMFY9l-6F34T9lnPjsIMlh8z3zVZdQklpVOnb4OCdSmnXNyg9eBd6x83tp~QIag8dX0vaDpDSfCD0WHlHxVHFMlpdFmnrahFVy7Ueybm6~x-nZhcVzYzKNx8QTVK3NuFiZkolYIGa2RtwWTCVYZgjFWiJyPskcmL2E-LI~dfvzvc8~4dG0eZ1ls739PXALmX0bYOkfEwMVI1KyFb8-Y9yjNivQouTW6zBZgJgBIhRJEefDo7kUSPBqKKVMI6qLbmHxOx6mnXzl-ve~kiqyXs5ivJKynGjdFZW9ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Ben Koppelman told the House Transportation Committee he introduced House Bill 1359 because some insurers steer drivers to a network of \"preferred\" repair shops, a practice he and several small shop owners said has squeezed independent shops and reduced consumer choice.

\"The idea is that they don't try to suggest your influence where you take your vehicle to,\" Representative Ben Koppelman said in his opening remarks, arguing that insurance influence can reduce local competition and push work to a smaller set of shops.

Small shop owners and technicians testified in support of the bill, saying insurers' preferred or direct repair programs (DRPs) make it difficult for independent shops to compete and that insurer practices have suppressed prevailing labor and materials rates. Rick Poppe, owner of West Fargo Auto Body and Glass, told the committee, \"Working with insurance companies is by far the most complex and frustrating of these challenges we face,\" and described difficulties getting payment for paint and materials and having some claims processed only after a carrier's preferred shop produced an estimate.

Proponents also described long‑term workforce effects in the body repair industry, saying young workers are choosing other trades because body shops cannot make competitive margins under insurer pressure.

Industry groups and insurers opposed the bill. Brooke Kelly of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) told the committee that direct repair programs \"simplify the repair process\" for consumers and provide quality‑assurance benefits. APCIA and other witnesses said consumers retain choice under existing rules and that DRPs speed repairs, coordinate logistics such as rental cars, and can reduce time without transportation.

Local mutual and regional carriers said they use a variety of shop relationships and that many insurers do not use exclusive networks. Rob Hovland of Center Mutual Insurance said North Dakota body labor rates are higher than national averages and urged careful study before changing the law. \"If you pass this bill in any form you do and we will adjust. The premiums will be reflected accordingly,\" he told members, cautioning that forcing insurers to accept every shop's specified labor rate could increase costs.

NODAC Insurance said its direct repair network exists to improve customer experience and to ensure shops have the equipment needed to repair modern vehicles with ADAS sensors and calibrations. \"Our direct repair shop system covers about 40 to 45, auto body shops in the state of North Dakota,\" Chris Owen of NODAC told the committee.

The committee heard competing views about consumer choice, prevailing labor rates, and whether DRPs amount to unlawful steering. Some shop owners asked the committee to prevent insurers from strong‑arming customers toward preferred shops; insurers countered that most customers choose a DRP for convenience and that statutes and insurance department guidance already protect consumer choice.

The committee closed the hearing and indicated it would evaluate whether statutory clarification or consumer‑education measures are preferable to an outright ban on preferred repair networks.","Representative Ben Koppelman sponsored HB1359 to restrict insurer steering to preferred auto body shops. Small repair shop owners urged passage to protect customer choice and local shops' economics; insurers and trade groups warned the change would reduce convenience, slow repairs and potentially raise costs.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6372693,"Committee weighs bill to let owners keep 'totaled' vehicles without buying them back",3023,2108000,5131000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214&start=2108&end=5131","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214/thumbnail_2108000.jpg","/articles/6372693/North-Dakota/Committee-weighs-bill-to-let-owners-keep-totaled-vehicles-without-buying-them-back","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6372693-c9b587894564bfadee1fa581345171da/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191244&Signature=ABQ53XBB1Ns9waYcEkb4kTvvld7FVvBlBxEjoqF81G-4XPxJiv2jR0ZM8~t8cEV0ObOJMo3fH4gRgGQ~8ULw0c2mXIclhy0iiQm2mOl8OY~24G6FoSSqalblBzoCpPGo9L~xb4LvvuSsbPdr45z4NY7MccgbGYJ25-FNfNEOU0ofgDrnW7raANkthv0NNZSvzYqD7urR2BxCs~35ltSLKj5j9Y549I2sxYWibC6FD2XiaNMIj-XozMij9hoX-RoEq4VSWwTQT9c8uN4Hw6o3ap9FfmKbM0jJoJqaG-zak6sJYDUYvioV5y2gAthgeT~-tHS3bg0dkdfkhGwDfnxuWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chairman Ruby (Representative Ruby), sponsor of House Bill 1243, told the committee he brought the measure after a constituent question: when an insurer declares a vehicle a total loss and pays the insured, why must the owner still buy the vehicle back if they want to retain it?

\"If they gave you that 50,000 and then you fixed it, brought it up to whole now, well, then you should be able to keep the car,\" Chairman Ruby said, describing the idea behind the bill. He said sometimes owners want to keep components (engines, axles or boxes on farm trucks) and should not have to repurchase a vehicle they already owned prior to the total‑loss payment.

Insurance industry witnesses strongly opposed the bill. Chris Owen, vice president of claims at NODAC Insurance Company, asked the committee for a \"do not pass\" recommendation and described how the total‑loss process currently works: an insurer pays the actual cash value, takes ownership of the wrecked vehicle, then recoups part of the loss by selling salvage to parts buyers. He told members that salvage sales offset losses and are factored into premiums.

\"By not allowing the sale of salvage and credit to the insurance company, this is going to drive rates for collision and comprehensive coverages dramatically,\" Owen said. He explained with a numerical example that if a company pays $10,000 for a total loss and later sells salvage for $2,000, the net cost is $8,000 — a number used in rate setting.

Towing representatives raised practical concerns about storage and public safety. Brian Barrett of the North Dakota Towing Association told the committee that storage fees accrue daily at tow yards and that owners who opt to keep salvage after an insurer ceases payment can face mounting storage charges — he cited typical tow‑yard storage fees of roughly $50 per day. Barrett also emphasized hazardous materials and battery disposal issues for damaged electric vehicles.

Rob Hovland of Center Mutual Insurance said the bill would especially affect newer vehicle markets and could raise premiums. \"If you get a new vehicle, sometimes there aren't parts available. So... the easy solution is to buy the vehicle, make the policyholder whole, and then you sell that vehicle as salvage,\" he said, adding that previous legislative efforts on similar ideas had stalled because of premium impacts.

Several committee members pressed the sponsor and insurers about options already available today. Insurers and industry witnesses described existing practices in which insureds can retain salvage but an agreed salvage deduction is taken from the settlement amount (a common approach that reduces the insurer's net loss). Witnesses warned the bill as written could create conflicts over who would pay additional towing or storage and could increase costs for all policyholders.

The committee closed the hearing without a vote. Members said they wanted more information about premium impacts, lienholder handling when vehicles are financed, and public‑safety/disposal logistics before advancing the bill.","Representative Ruby explained House Bill 1243 would require insurers to allow vehicle owners to retain ownership of vehicles declared a total loss without the insurer withholding or requiring a separate buy‑back payment; insurers warned the change would raise premiums and create logistical and environmental risks.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6372698,"House committee hears bill to require insurers to offer windshield coverage option",1537,380000,1917000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214&start=380&end=1917","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2147338-07704134d6f918acace7cc4cf6649214/thumbnail_380000.jpg","/articles/6372698/North-Dakota/House-committee-hears-bill-to-require-insurers-to-offer-windshield-coverage-option","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6372698-8ba5360ba45aeae16839d483c43365d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191244&Signature=L8eA-6ENFbzr8jHIYd5nad7s5I8viTulk2tfIibPLc7CXKZTi02U42B6eFgTTkRMlGDjDHN4iy1l76CNmb4MUMGKH2j7v36AfmCm0~NdijJm6vMZzAW-PNjthUJR107j0GKMKg5u0JcaoBOY89-L2MfAcSnqpMQgdZPjCj6415Lo-A~l0C4PPIZvbm738gDlBIZqsSS7oTpXDhs2MT6~cGLTilQ4LX7Vn20S6cpO1-yi5QcEtuek45OKPl6qiLgPa~yv41bCCpkpdJG0VS7rrNGOFxQCCUz1kJA1JPzVDgAuTnQJfFOXp5Z12tA0sC9Rps2NgxL~BMYBBvq7FlL9ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Steve Vetter, sponsor of House Bill 1240, told the House Transportation Committee that the bill would require auto insurers to offer some form of predeductible or reduced‑deductible glass coverage so consumers could avoid paying full deductibles for windshield repair or replacement.

The bill's sponsor said the measure is intended to create an option, not a mandate that insurers make glass coverage the default. \"The bill's intent is to have insurance companies offer just some type of predeductible plan,\" Representative Steve Vetter said during testimony. He said consumers could choose a low cost add‑on if they wanted lower out‑of‑pocket expenses for windshield claims.

The measure drew opposition from representatives of insurers and industry groups who said the bill would impose a new mandate and increase compliance costs. Philip Arnsen, representing the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), told the committee, \"Our primary concern is that this is a new mandate on insurers.\" He said many insurers already offer glass endorsements or riders and that mandating a product could add complexity and cost.

Industry witnesses described existing market options and technical costs. Chris Owen, vice president of claims at NODAC Insurance Company, said his firm offers an endorsement to reduce the customer cost for auto glass claims and that many carriers already have similar products available through agents. Rob Hovland, president of Center Mutual Insurance Company, testified that involving insurers in many small claims can increase costs and that carriers and shops sometimes encourage customers to pay out of pocket for minor repairs.

Insurer witnesses also explained that modern vehicles can carry higher windshield replacement costs because of integrated driver assistance sensors and calibration. \"Some newer vehicles have... sensors... It’s not uncommon right now for windshields to be over $2,000 replaced,\" Chris Owen said, adding that recalibration of cameras can add several hundred dollars per calibration.

Committee members asked technical questions about how a predeductible option would interact with collision and comprehensive coverages, how riders would be priced, and whether consumers would actually benefit if insurers offered a plan but did not market it. Representative Ben Koppelman asked whether insurers could technically offer a low‑cost rider and still claim most policies have higher deductibles; Representative Vetter argued competition would drive at least some companies to offer lower options.

The hearing record shows industry and sponsor conversations have continued outside the hearing room. Philip Arnsen told the committee NAMIC and the sponsor have been \"productive\" in talks and that he believed a neutral or supportive position might be achievable after further discussion.

The committee took no vote at the hearing and left the measure available for further negotiation between the sponsor and insurers. The bill drew detailed technical questions about statutory language and about how to define and require an \"offer\" without imposing advertising or marketing requirements on carriers.","A House Transportation Committee hearing drew insurance industry opposition and supporter testimony on House Bill 1240, which would require insurers to offer a standalone or \"predeductible\" glass coverage option so consumers could avoid high out‑of‑pocket costs for windshield replacement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee considers restoring limits on what driving data insurers may access

Bill would ban insurer 'preferred' repair networks; insurers say networks help consumers

Committee weighs bill to let owners keep 'totaled' vehicles without buying them back

House committee hears bill to require insurers to offer windshield coverage option