[{"_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",6066734,"mediaKeyId","3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc","parentId",3155774,"title","Committee rejects amendment to clarify that insurance agents are not franchisees; plaintiffs warn of legal impact","audioSeconds",3651,"startMs",3656000,"endMs",4988,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc&start=3656&end=4","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc/thumbnail_3656000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6066734/Arkansas/Committee-rejects-amendment-to-clarify-that-insurance-agents-are-not-franchisees-plaintiffs-warn-of-legal-impact","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6066734-3d66688dd0e3bb571975c82e7358031d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143032&Signature=mwQXCrDIY0aKk65BZ6EyloMS3cTAbnj3QOZHu07m6FU2iwY9Sd0-Yr~i6KBV53cM-XlmWsFtq7urht7HrsjWGeH9T-Zao1xwKhi2CMNH8Ox4mMFwnU~9GYtk~CDrZcdMgQbTrLY6yScTxzkGTfRJBE7NSpbYhKgNo8MERp4gFOUZTqSg5zaXZFrc0c-UV0SeNXC1cek3eXBjCxu6Q4jTMooPDoEyz9V8FhegJEkQIJwJNZqLKbSgjgqfZJhXWjrRL5AbUAOBfC2xkrF6tRwQFSij1gJKbWkvnEigaaDkJPXvTAVUeXOPdUlZjpO9s7PCouegaTvY0Bu-QQlJvTtGqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arkansas State Legislature","date","2025-04-09T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Matt Brown presented an amendment to the Franchise Practices Act aimed at clarifying that insurance agents are not franchisees for purposes of the statute. The committee adopted a two‑year delayed effective date amendment intended to avoid interfering with current litigation, heard testimony from the plaintiff and his son, and nonetheless failed to pass the overall measure.

Brown said the Franchise Practices Act was originally aimed at traditional franchise arrangements and that repeated court attempts to treat insurance agents as franchisees have created uncertainty. To address that, the bill would clarify the law so future claims by agents could not be litigated under the franchise statute. Brown said the amendment delayed effective date by two years to avoid affecting a pending lawsuit in Harrison.

Opponents said the change would appear to be targeted at ongoing litigation. RG Ernest, who spoke on behalf of his father, told the committee that his father’s contract was signed after the act became effective and that the family has spent substantial time and money pursuing a claim under the existing Franchise Practices Act. He warned that the legislature’s statement of intent could be used by the defendant to influence ongoing cases. His father, Roger Ernest, described building the family agency over decades and said the family was left to litigate after termination.

Several committee members questioned whether the two‑year delay would in fact prevent courts from citing legislative intent. An attorney who testified said judges do pay attention to legislative action and that a future statute could be used as persuasive authority, even before its effective date, depending on procedural posture and appellate timing.

Committee action: The committee adopted the delayed‑effect amendment but, after debate and public testimony, the motion to pass the measure as amended failed in committee.

Why it matters: The proposal would have changed how courts interpret the statutory protection in the Franchise Practices Act and could limit the legal options available to agents who claim they were treated as franchisees. Opponents said retroactive or near‑term changes could unfairly affect litigants who have already invested in legal claims; supporters said the change would reduce repetitive, unsuccessful litigation.

What’s next: With the committee vote failing, the statutory clarification will not proceed from this committee at this time; proponents may refile or pursue alternative remedies in later sessions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Insurance and Commerce Committee - Apr 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Matt Brown presented an amendment to the Franchise Practices Act to state explicitly that insurance agents are not franchisees; the committee adopted a delayed effective‑date amendment but ultimately did not pass the bill.","taxTitle","INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas","taxId",21106,"location","Arkansas","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},6066744,"Arkansas committee adopts amendments but defeats wide-ranging wind energy regulations",2528,600000,3128000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc&start=600&end=3128","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc/thumbnail_600000.jpg","/articles/6066744/Arkansas/Arkansas-committee-adopts-amendments-but-defeats-wide-ranging-wind-energy-regulations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6066744-d26fccd9b4bb522859bfb03ba28edcee/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143032&Signature=fPUKIZl7eBX5sJCxw8S1i7A8vdfEW8cFm-9gqmx6-YmRkqa7PB0AYtTMpDNsPH4ZGXp98ScNgwI6JS6z49a14xJt1Miknx713insWDdIj8hO7m3FobzjKf22~jxJBmE1zc5hWFbiOQXIPMyxtoB9O6kqjAsQZI3Nng92hyetGTovJza4cFtuFQfYy-mAQA9MpnOppRbiqwbfXXR85664ex1Izi0I41br0zt~iEgwCgwKsrYOGPFSVThAYLjqR~~D9T5DhmqAow~aX9F94MZZE-NuPEDyEpbOZRb5g-LuQmWmyZpKhZaGupEBmPx2ZFS6b2GMFIKPUr1~ggAD0FJTyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Eubanks and other lawmakers debated Senate Bill 437, a comprehensive package of regulations for commercial wind energy projects in Arkansas, before the House Insurance & Commerce Committee on a late‑day hearing. The committee adopted a negotiated amendment and heard multiple witnesses on both sides before voting the bill down.

The vote followed extended public testimony about safety, land use and the economic effects of large‑scale wind projects. Proponents argued the measure fills a regulatory gap; opponents said the combined requirements would amount to a de facto moratorium on new projects outside existing developments.

The bill’s sponsor and members said the state currently has little or no siting regulation for wind projects and that SB 437 would establish statewide standards. “Right now, there is no regulation. They can put them anywhere they want to, as tall as they want to,” a sponsor told the committee during discussion of the amended language. The amendment removed a prior elevation threshold (300 feet) that had divided the state for siting rules and instead applied the bill’s requirements statewide.

Witnesses for the bill and for developers said the measure simply creates predictable rules. Robert Morey of Swift Current Energy said his firm had worked with lawmakers and stakeholders and that his in‑development projects are exempted from the new rules. “We have worked very closely with him. We are okay with this language,” he told the committee.

Opponents included timber company and agricultural aviation representatives who said the bill’s combined requirements—setbacks, hydrological study zones, visibility (\"view shed\") analyses, minimum setbacks from nonparticipating landowners, and other environmental and cultural protections—would make most wind development infeasible in much of Arkansas. Jackson Braswell of Weyerhaeuser warned that the bill would remove a potential revenue stream for landowners and local communities: “The legislation as drafted today would likely remove this potential revenue stream from not only us, but the communities that we live and operate in.”

Agricultural aviators pressed safety concerns. Cole Hartley, president of the Arkansas Agricultural Aviation Association, told the committee that turbines clustered throughout farmland would sharply increase risk for crop‑dusting pilots who operate at or below typical turbine heights. “If our farmland’s dotted with wind turbines, it’s not really a matter of if, but when there will be an ag aviation accident because of them,” Hartley said.

Technical provisions drew specific questions. Julie Morton, who explained several technical elements of the amended bill, said a view‑shed analysis would assess “what the physical view is going to be” from parks, historic sites and conservation lands; she said the Public Service Commission would evaluate analyses submitted by developers. Morton also described a four‑mile hydrogeological assessment requirement in some terrain, citing U.S. Geological Survey data showing that construction can affect groundwater and private wells at a distance in certain areas.

The assembled rules also included a 2,500‑foot setback from nonparticipating landowners’ property lines and optional opt‑out language for landowners who agreed to a smaller buffer. Supporters framed those protections as new rights for relatives and nonparticipating neighbors; opponents said the safeguards, combined with other restrictions, would leave little developable land.

Developers and industry groups said the bill’s cumulative effect mirrors laws in other states that have halted projects. Simon Mahan of the Southern Renewable Energy Association showed a map the committee that he said illustrated areas where the proposed restrictions would bar development and argued the package resembled a Tennessee law he described as effectively banning wind projects.

Committee action: The panel first adopted an amendment that clarified “underdevelopment,” added an effective start date for prior activity, and removed the 300‑foot elevation line that had split the state. Representative Eubanks also successfully moved to expunge an earlier amendment vote from that morning. After testimony and debate, Representative Eubanks moved to pass the bill as amended. The motion failed; the chair announced the bill had failed after members vocalized their votes at the end of the hearing.

Why it matters: The debate reflects a larger policy tension between private landowner property rights and local agricultural safety, plus state‑level interest in balancing renewable energy development against environmental, cultural and public‑safety concerns. Industry representatives said the package would sharply constrain future projects in Arkansas; opponents said the bill would protect communities and nonparticipating landowners from unregulated siting.

What’s next: Committee members noted the amendment must return to the Senate because the committee modified the version the Senate had adopted. Because the motion to pass failed in committee, the bill will not move from this committee at this time.

","Representative Eubanks and other lawmakers debated Senate Bill 437, a comprehensive package of regulations for commercial wind energy projects in Arkansas, before the House Insurance & Commerce Committee on a late‑day hearing.",{"_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},6066729,"Committee quickly concurs in multiple Senate amendments on insurance bills",377,36000,413000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc&start=36&end=413","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc/thumbnail_36000.jpg","/articles/6066729/Arkansas/Committee-quickly-concurs-in-multiple-Senate-amendments-on-insurance-bills","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6066729-9350d1ff9d0a4700a618ea0fe1edeed0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143032&Signature=BzlVQdgpdIrA1Q4MsGbPeSecx1ZlYMOWlIX0CigDVEuocOZ3YmdCJHFOAuCmSA-OBDOIKsYtVhRYYjDcfReKJ68dLPYGO3QC6AEmTpic5v~V4EbpzafWKEDCxO3Ju5pPeOULrdakSRDdLyz1dGpHlOyIVYDd5ZHckQA2dH95SgJa-GzpjMX-zcOrQMleqXNBdwzkw-~~21PEmZZGRHOy9Xgj6wE9U9tT9h9nBBt28PUicqzvCayTrYoviAcoILYLwReDfQZbruSvPhw2RE0dTcNes13M43c-s1GUaostDyNJe0zerNdVwqVzB90eeXRwpuyUpsy2ZXgl0lEo8wxdtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Early in the session the House Insurance & Commerce Committee handled a string of short concurrence votes on Senate amendments to several House bills. Committee members introduced the bills briefly, sponsors explained that the Senate had corrected clerical or definitional language, and the committee voted by voice to concur on each amendment.

Bills addressed by short concurrence votes included corrections for terminology (for example replacing \"registered lactation consultants\" with \"certified lactation consultants\" in one bill), definition alignment with existing Employee Benefits Division policy for bariatric surgery coverage, data‑access clarifications for PBM licensure reporting, and clerical or FDA‑reference language changes for other health‑related measures.

A partial list of concurrence actions recorded on the committee floor (all by voice vote, as recorded in committee transcript):

- HB 133: Concurred in Senate amendment; corrected \"registered\" to \"certified\" for lactation consultants (sponsor: Representative Ashley Hudson). Outcome: concurrence passed.
- HB 1424: Concurred in Senate amendment to align bariatric surgery coverage definitions with EBD (sponsor: Representative Lee Johnson). Outcome: concurrence passed.
- HB 1602: Concurred in Senate amendment adjusting data access and reporting for PBM licensure and protecting certain data while allowing pharmacist access (sponsor: Representative Lee Johnson). Outcome: concurrence passed.
- HB 1531: Concurred in Senate amendment clarifying manufacturer application review and FDA language (sponsor: Representative Baker). Outcome: concurrence passed.
- HB 1700 and HB 1771: Concurred in clerical or technical amendments as described on the floor (sponsors: Representative Baker; Representative Mark Perry for HB 1771). Outcome: concurrences passed.
- HB 1820: Amendment added additional exempted industries; concurrence passed (sponsor: Representative Matt Brown).

Why it matters: These are transactional, technical fixes and reconciliations between the House and Senate versions of bills; each was handled by unanimous or near‑unanimous voice vote and did not generate extended debate on the record.

What’s next: Each concurred amendment will be reflected in the enrolled bill language moving through the legislative process.","The committee recorded voice votes to concur in a series of Senate amendments to House bills covering varied insurance topics; each concurrence was brief and uncontroversial on the record.",{"_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},6066739,"Committee approves insurer‑reporting bill requiring annual commercial insurer disclosures",724,3080000,3804000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc&start=3080&end=3804","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155774-949aa5a6900928ec3e673ebee6e8aadc/thumbnail_3080000.jpg","/articles/6066739/Arkansas/Committee-approves-insurerreporting-bill-requiring-annual-commercial-insurer-disclosures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6066739-60dcc2cf02861c5229ab2a2e4eda161c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143032&Signature=aMg3yva5OZRQheYB0BH5W3~sEjJ7FUDpTqgM4ya3D~wgitA8TM6EwfZetUHiQLqgX9XhLDsuTafW-zsfhY6Q-7lcvU8IPyfcgm36KJ9zybZOTwLeVUkUdvAmfqGi7vpN1vBRv6tu2w5tz8yEKYGymLwwT5hxA7aq-8hbbWEJo18SpCQ-D4DfkuvraVaiDWmTi7h8xb~wgfTeSiKovGz9xlzOU1Mk2wO6XCJA7U3PIGZQMS76p8R42koURw7YBR4ZhpeFpg9vWFjFu3sYCXhihmUd3VDrEgFxDXoIisikwYy30GTXtzQD2ABDZNmrDRC7BY0TB8wP1ki~6q5cS6yVtA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Lee Johnson told the committee the bill aims to increase transparency about commercial health insurers’ finances so that regulators and legislators can better evaluate rate increase requests. The committee adopted an amendment and voted the bill out.

Johnson said the measure requires commercial health insurers to file an annual report by March 1 with the Arkansas Insurance Department, including factors such as medical loss ratio and risk‑based capital considerations. The bill would not apply to the state Employee Benefits Division (EBD) because the committee already has access to EBD financial data.

Grant Wallace, director of the Employee Benefits Division, testified that after amendments removing a prior cost‑sharing collection provision, EBD considered the fiscal impact acceptable and that the department could already respond to data requests from legislators.

Insurance industry representatives urged caution. Derek Smith of Mitchell Williams, speaking for America’s Health Insurance Plans, told the committee that many of the requested financial statements are already publicly available on the Arkansas Insurance Department website as audited annual statements. Smith cautioned against using risk‑based capital (RBC) as a criterion to deny rate requests, saying high RBC levels are a solvency cushion insurers should be encouraged to hold rather than penalized for.

Johnson replied that regulators need richer context when insurers propose rate increases and that the bill is intended to help the Insurance Department and lawmakers determine if a rate filing is justified, not to cripple insurers. “We want to see for sure that their profit margins aren't 200 percent,” Johnson said during committee discussion as he urged safeguards against excessive retained capital.

Committee action: The panel adopted an amendment clarifying definitions and removing a proposed cost‑sharing mandate. After discussion and opposing testimony from the insurance industry, the committee voted to pass the bill as amended.

Why it matters: The bill would increase legislative and regulatory access to financial metrics for commercial health insurers active in Arkansas — Blue Cross Blue Shield, Centene, Aetna, Humana and other commercial carriers — and aims to provide more context for rate filings while preserving the Insurance Department’s independence and insurers’ ability to maintain solvency.

What’s next: The bill passed from committee and will proceed in the legislative process as the next steps allow.","The House Insurance & Commerce Committee voted to pass Representative Lee Johnson’s bill requiring annual financial reporting from commercial health insurers to the Arkansas Insurance Department and to the legislature; advocates and insurers debated the proposal’s need and potential effects on solvency incentives.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee rejects amendment to clarify that insurance agents are not franchisees; plaintiffs warn of legal impact

Arkansas committee adopts amendments but defeats wide-ranging wind energy regulations

Committee quickly concurs in multiple Senate amendments on insurance bills

Committee approves insurer‑reporting bill requiring annual commercial insurer disclosures