Rep. Curtis Schomer, sponsor of House Bill 533, told the Senate Business and Labor Committee that HB 533 would require insurers using a wildfire risk score when underwriting residential property to provide an explanation of that score to the insured or their producer upon request.

The bill’s supporters told the committee they framed HB 533 as a consumer-protection measure aimed at transparency around third-party wildfire or "nat cat" scores used by insurers. "This puts some information back into the insured's hands so they can either make the changes or make some kind of appeal to the insurance company," said Bob Biskupiak, who identified himself as representing the Independent Insurance Agencies of Montana and as a board member of FireSafe Montana.

Why it matters: witnesses said homeowners are facing nonrenewals or moves to surplus-lines markets after a wildfire-risk score labels a property adverse. That transition can mean higher premiums, reduced coverage, and loss of access to the state guarantee association for some policies, proponents said. Proponents told the committee the models used by third-party vendors can be inconsistent from house to house and between branches of the same carrier.

Several insurance agents described instances they said illustrated the problem. "I've had personal experience where a homeowners policy was canceled because the county changed their address," said Chris Hindoyne, an independent insurance agent with Rocky Mountain Insurance Services. He described situations where an otherwise identical house next door received a different underwriting outcome because of a wildfire-risk score.

Frank Cote, speaking for the Office of the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, called HB 533 "a great bill" and urged the committee to pass it. Representatives of major insurance trade groups, including State Farm and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, also said they supported the bill; Amy Grimales of APCIA asked for a one-word drafting change in the bill text and described cooperation with the sponsor.

Committee discussion focused on how the score is produced, what homeowners receive when notified of nonrenewal, and what recourse exists if an insured disputes a score. Members noted agents can sometimes receive little more than a nonrenewal notice; witnesses said carriers are required to provide written notice of nonrenewal and reasons, and that the Commissioner’s office can accept complaints if carriers refuse to correct erroneous information.

Proponents and several senators asked to see the wildfire-risk score products used by carriers; the sponsor agreed to attempt to obtain and share an example with senators and committee staff. The record also included practical suggestions from senators and proponents about defensible space and home inspections as ways homeowners can reduce risk and improve underwriting outcomes.

The hearing concluded with Rep. Schomer asking the committee to "do concur on this bill." The transcript does not record a formal committee vote or final recommendation.

Less-critical details: witnesses discussed the broader national context of wildfire-driven underwriting changes in states such as California and North Carolina and noted mitigation can reduce risk but cannot prevent all wildfire losses. Several witnesses said the bill intends to be nonbureaucratic: information would be provided upon request rather than by automatic disclosure at every renewal.