[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6057681,"mediaKeyId","3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab","parentId",3300441,"title","Committee approves bill requiring insurers to notify regulator when they pause writing policies; debate over confidentiality","audioSeconds",403,"startMs",3044000,"endMs",3447000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab&start=3044&end=3447","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab/thumbnail_3044000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6057681/Louisiana/Committee-approves-bill-requiring-insurers-to-notify-regulator-when-they-pause-writing-policies-debate-over-confidentiality","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057681-372327fbe62eb01122fefe7aabdd3f5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771066290&Signature=i~eZZmy2uolKdLDWjTTtP1ZdLTTVFXTlaOZxhU16k3-Vc1m3392otqWZVqksWhWJfGsdoGANzvsZmBAhhira4PxcyN8s10nOKjs9tq~jfwNcCYg0ybgvumxKzfZwCb7VS6lvmyWChtriAvDZQwW-3WYh-LpFPzkEZ28Tc8V6AfFmRmpA67TeGHGGZUuE9sXT~40QIB3zq4fP9QkK~N-FyVER6z0Nljk8EFFTAPNjj-bk7bcjMAADAx1C6REgc75ttDW~j5COoRMdTcfdhyGWgpJjoud3wFdFkMGezgfB2qEZ-vLUUJAX57f4mpHzdJZHeEPukX8j7MkwmhE57oNJmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Louisiana Legislature","date","2025-05-14T00:00:00Z","article","The House Insurance Committee adopted amendments and reported Senate Bill 137 favorably after extended debate over whether notifications should be confidential. The amended bill requires insurers to notify the Louisiana Department of Insurance within 10 days after informing agents that they will cease, pause or resume issuing new auto or property policies for a particular geographic area.

The Department of Insurance’s chief deputy Barrow Peacock told the committee the notification is intended to give the commissioner situational awareness of market activity: “If an insurance company informed their agents that they are going to pause or cease writing a certain type of policy in a geographical area, they simply inform the Department of Insurance so that the commissioner would have knowledge of this.” The amendment makes those notices confidential and allows limited disclosure — for example, to other states’ insurance departments or in an adjudicatory context.

Several members objected to the confidentiality provisions. Representative Glorioso urged the department to publish a consumer‑facing list or online map showing which carriers write in a given parish so residents can quickly find available carriers. “If you have that data, why can't you have a map on your website where I can go click it and I'm looking for property insurance and I'll be a list of everyone that's writing?” she asked.

Deputy Peacock and other supporters said public disclosure could give competitors a tactical advantage and potentially reduce competition and downward pressure on rates. “You don't want one company to have a competitive advantage over another company,” Peacock said, explaining the amendment’s confidentiality choice was intended to avoid disclosing sensitive competitive intelligence.

The committee adopted the amendment set and reported SB 137 as amended, with the sponsor and Department of Insurance agreeing to continued work on consumer outreach options outside the bill.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Insurance May 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","House Insurance Committee members adopted amendments and reported Senate Bill 137, which requires insurers to tell the Department of Insurance within 10 days when they stop, pause or resume writing certain new policies in a geographic area.","taxTitle","Insurance, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Louisiana","taxId",20975,"location","Louisiana","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},6057687,"Committee advances bill allowing homeowners to buy \"stated value\" policies amid coastal insurance squeeze",2833,3308000,6141000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab&start=3308&end=6141","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab/thumbnail_3308000.jpg","/articles/6057687/Louisiana/Committee-advances-bill-allowing-homeowners-to-buy-stated-value-policies-amid-coastal-insurance-squeeze","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057687-e1d489d77ad6fe9b78b69f0b68ce91e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771066290&Signature=Hk9CXT4RCD9GkG~UxONQm7rDAU-6dt3YVtKy46-C3qhGI7e1Q-K4aJlwl7oW3rfa-0A5sVvJDCuw2oHXlCefEotu-gmOLTbc~T3hjohdTbi9lgXvXoa1trlczrhrLjnU-AxxmsgfX0-jI6olUs2qKWOC3lDmqDt~4kFfoqPcFEJMFkAsInwh3zr4CP0-smCxV9j7UL5sOo7WSq4EEWnk0a6N0xegVZ-EHbqJ49FplnCkMX0tsJsV9Kzcj2YgkjpMnouJHDZsNHYQqexdjpXrkBd2c~S6opuiBVCnoancINACujaGLCaeAUV1wUSMpnbtA1bfbnxjKjxrGZiMfRlaqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Insurance Committee narrowly reported House Bill 356 favorably after a long, often emotional committee hearing focused on insurance access in coastal and high‑cost areas. The measure would allow homeowners to purchase a stated‑value homeowners policy — a contract that sets an agreed dollar limit on coverage rather than a full replacement‑cost value.

Representative Brose (bill sponsor) told the committee he wants to give homeowners an option where full replacement‑cost premiums are unaffordable. “People need another option,” he said, describing cases where homeowners own their houses outright but cannot afford high premiums and would prefer to insure some set amount of equity rather than the full replacement cost.

Supporters, including several committee members from southern parishes, said the bill could prevent owners from being forced into forced‑placement policies or surrendering homes. “Let’s give our citizens the option to get as much coverage as they can afford so they have something,” Representative Glorioso said.

Opponents and industry witnesses cautioned that stated‑value products can leave homeowners short after a loss. Multiple industry witnesses and agents explained that most homeowner claims are partial losses, and the bottom layers of coverage are the most expensive; a stated‑value policy can therefore yield limited premium savings while exposing policyholders to out‑of‑pocket shortfalls and potential litigation over claims and agent disclosures. Farm Bureau and other insurers said the bill would complicate reinsurance purchasing and portfolio modeling.

Committee members pressed sponsors on consumer education, mortgage requirements and practical mechanics. Representative Wilder said the measure would increase consumers’ choices but stressed the need for strong disclosures and consumer education so buyers understand they are exchanging broader protection for lower premium costs. Speaker Pro Tem Johnson offered to work with the sponsor and the insurance commissioner to develop alternatives and directed follow‑up discussions before the floor.

The motion to report HB 356 favorably passed on a roll call, 8 yeas and 7 nays. Committee members recorded support for continued collaboration with industry and the Department of Insurance to refine product design, disclosures, and an effective date to allow insurers time to file forms and rates.","The House Insurance Committee reported House Bill 356 favorably after lengthy debate on creating \"stated value\" homeowners policies as a lower‑cost option for owners who cannot afford replacement‑cost premiums.",{"_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},6057672,"Committee approves PBM transparency amendments after pharmacy and insurer testimony",1709,4925000,6634000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab&start=4925&end=6634","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab/thumbnail_4925000.jpg","/articles/6057672/Louisiana/Committee-approves-PBM-transparency-amendments-after-pharmacy-and-insurer-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057672-5c35dbb6b0c75aba8393da34152d2f56/orig.mp4?Expires=1771066290&Signature=VLnvbbTKgFqdVhDe1UiyNIl4gXmJsBLnki96NORtnU33pWG~wEgP8KMospc~4xm6ecNxsQNtX~hZVaNGaUvv0cq7uA~4kyU9HZnpNXuJ0DHUd7bklwyFSCEBLUWWLTjEnypfTMgay1H6twzAgQvG69tFvos3Pcw58tpB6AdleWj-3oXKZo0mG3vPkQ0wHgHQh35qAxM0-C3JnLlFfPtXFuBzC~OAsMSo1JttIElYOnVhkvfHjYpF7q0VNoxHFczafkQgaDnTOEE4vv4BYs4O4DLswjNAM3rdvfRr~7njXOTRQBiqM~5f6ZhlCU0brbsChwJ6Ld8M4Hwe1AUj6-Itxg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Insurance Committee adopted amendments and reported House Bill 264, a transparency measure for pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) rebate practices, after testimony from independent pharmacists, patient advocates and insurers.

Sponsor Representative Echols described the bill as a consumer‑ and pharmacy‑focused transparency measure. “This bill seeks to expose hidden profit mechanisms within the PBM industry,” he told the committee, adding the Department of Insurance should be empowered to review and enforce transparent reporting.

Independent pharmacists and trade representatives urged the committee to approve a version that would let the regulator see rebates and concessions that PBMs negotiate with manufacturers and retain rather than passing through to plans or pharmacies. Pharmacist Jonathan Hartman said the industry needs data to ensure plan sponsors and pharmacies are paid fairly and warned that modeling and projections of drug spend could be affected if contractual guarantees were removed without alternatives.

Insurers, PBMs and large health plans urged technical clarifications. Industry witnesses told the committee that definitions in the initial amendment were imprecise and that the Department of Insurance lacks staff and established processes to approve PBM contracts as drafted. Several witnesses supported giving DOI authority to examine relevant books and records but opposed a requirement that the commissioner pre‑approve contracts.

Representative Wilder moved favorable passage. The committee adopted the sponsor’s amendment set and accepted a related technical amendment offered by Representative Willard after negotiating language that narrowed contract‑approval authority and added an administrative appeal path to the division of administrative law. The bill was reported with amendments; committee members asked Echols to continue working with DOI and industry to refine definitions and implementation steps before floor action.","The House Insurance Committee reported House Bill 264 with amendments after testimony from independent pharmacists and insurers about transparency in PBM rebate and payment practices.",{"_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},6057676,"Committee adopts rate‑transparency report requirement for insurers' filings",311,2705000,3016000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab&start=2705&end=3016","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab/thumbnail_2705000.jpg","/articles/6057676/Louisiana/Committee-adopts-ratetransparency-report-requirement-for-insurers-filings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057676-52391f66a46ae2141d29c39c8d0daf9f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771066290&Signature=Tl8OetFPMBIt17S06cqxxZjt6tk7EqVqgWnX4kBNvvONq-ThZEys0E4303RrYoPk34J-RtnK0XXXKuc3OYn0G-LExgua5LMe74K6qVwxP7l5-t-ShjPDm0NmuKKY0zmQQO~AuEdWkHRu1aLVCVg6cd4McZ3rbmY08b07tnw4WOewb07NgI6IxopRFKArp4cZTUP4PFKUUsJ6GYGnvvigIkQ-UMkIrL0nIelRUcCqNqwnif613W83cO2gbrzriNX2Q3VGWJb8BNTqIW-95qdXZGsXKLD3BlrFWoCp9agRbAX~BsEUf~l-A1XEjgM-ZHM9u1PIHPNE4yvCoC7pwUfrFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Insurance Committee adopted amendments and reported Senate Bill 136 favorably. The measure requires insurers to submit a rate‑transparency report along with rate filings to the Department of Insurance.

Chief Deputy Barrow Peacock said the report will be a projected, aggregated description of claims and other cost drivers used in a company’s rate filing. “This is more of a transparency report and it won't be unique to everybody's individual policy, but the overall rate filing of how they project cost to be in their rate filing,” Peacock said.

Amendments adopted in set 2855 narrowed several requirements: changing “cost of claims” to “projected cost of claims,” removing a requirement to report changes in a homeowner’s total insured value from last issuance, adding an express statement that the instrument does not create a private right of action for insurers, and delaying the effective date to July 1, 2026 to give companies time to comply.

Committee members asked about enforcement; Peacock said the commissioner would use existing statutory authority, including fines, if companies failed to comply. The amendment set was adopted without objection and the bill was reported favorably.","Senate Bill 136, as amended, will require insurers to submit a rate‑transparency report with each rate filing showing projected costs (including claims projection) and other clarifying information. The committee adopted amendment set 2855 to refine report items and moved the bill forward without objection.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6057691,"Committee backs bill narrowing insurers' bad-faith exposure after excess judgments",2223,305000,2528000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab&start=305&end=2528","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3300441-403aff94dce0560d0a21285f4564a9ab/thumbnail_305000.jpg","/articles/6057691/Louisiana/Committee-backs-bill-narrowing-insurers-bad-faith-exposure-after-excess-judgments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6057691-97967a9489085ae6f55e98cd40055398/orig.mp4?Expires=1771066290&Signature=e8rY0JQ1gii-zjXtTU2ADUqZuRklNc2CB4owQ-EBF2r8ooy5-is6tcib142DmERTWgdTFjDss6s5U0PhqVH1gJKb7mFjrUVwEmQp-CngpNsjHeuWoA4iLR9y~LzV3WbFPC-PuHbmmw0n3M8Jz84yxZhI~Go43sBgDsFe3ZkpKujvtPk9-NlxPdMgPda8ONlDRAIRJpJbceUHQrYdRkd2cHe4-Qi5AniBVeMuEJvT7W9TFi6sFWo2-FcYCxHoyoQLaB6S5qJ8bdTFlhaZi3It69Adc0YZFoqKeHgNzzK26Wgkj6l8JLqFIKVBNaRBr2QzEb-2i6n8w5tW3pjUpOrqjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Insurance Committee on Wednesday voted to report Senate Bill 111 favorably, 10-3, after a lengthy debate over insurer duties and plaintiffs’ settlement practices.

Sponsor Senator Seabaugh said the bill would codify and limit a cause of action that the Louisiana Supreme Court created in Kelly v. State Farm. “If the insurer has a good faith dispute as to liability and they lose, they're not in bad faith,” Seabaugh told the committee, adding the measure would make bad-faith claims a fact question for juries rather than a near-automatic result of an excess judgment.

The bill responds to lawsuits that, supporters said, use short, time‑limited demands to pressure insurers into settling for more than policy limits. Seabaugh said plaintiffs’ lawyers sometimes “make a very short offer… and then refuse to accept policy limits offered thereafter going for an excess judgment in the hopes of making what's been called a Kelly claim.” The bill would clarify that where an insurer has a good‑faith dispute about liability or medical causation — or where no within‑limits offer was presented — a later bad‑faith claim should be resolved as a factual question rather than presumed.

Opponents warned the change could leave insureds exposed. Luke Williamson of the Louisiana Association of Justice argued the measure would likely increase litigation and allow insurers to pursue pre‑suit discovery that could delay relief for claimants. Industry witnesses including trade groups and insurers testified in support, saying the bill would let insurers defend cases they reasonably believe they can win without automatic bad‑faith exposure if they later lose at trial.

Committee members pressed sponsors on practical safeguards. Representative Glorioso asked whether the insurer’s duty to protect the insured’s interests still exists; Seabaugh answered that the bill recognizes a “good faith liability dispute” standard that must account for the insurer’s duty to the insured. Several members said they supported the bill’s goals while urging the courts and future legislation to monitor whether further statutory clarifications are needed.

A roll call recorded 10 yeas and 3 nays and the committee reported SB 111 favorably to the House floor.

What happens next: The bill was reported favorably to the House; if taken up by the full House it would proceed through the regular floor calendar and, if passed, return to the Senate for concurrence or further amendment.","The House Insurance Committee on Wednesday reported Senate Bill 111 favorably (10-3). The measure would limit when an insured (or assignee) can bring a bad-faith claim against an insurer after a jury renders a judgment exceeding policy limits, focusing on whether the insurer had a good-faith dispute over liability or medical causation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves bill requiring insurers to notify regulator when they pause writing policies; debate over confidentiality

Committee advances bill allowing homeowners to buy "stated value" policies amid coastal insurance squeeze

Committee approves PBM transparency amendments after pharmacy and insurer testimony

Committee adopts rate‑transparency report requirement for insurers' filings

Committee backs bill narrowing insurers' bad-faith exposure after excess judgments