Representative Patusick introduced House Bill 359, which would prohibit denial of banking and insurance services on any factor that is not quantitative, impartial and risk‑based as measured by an objective standard.

Why it matters: proponents argue the measure would protect consumers and businesses from discriminatory or arbitrary denials of banking and insurance services. Opponents, including the New Hampshire Bankers Association and major insurers, said the draft would interfere with underwriting, risk‑based pricing and federal compliance obligations.

Regulatory enforcement and jurisdiction questions
Alexandra Sypniewski, assistant attorney general in the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau, told the committee that the Consumer Protection Act contains an exemption for matters that fall under banking or insurance regulation (RSA 358‑A exemption), which limits the department’s enforcement authority in areas governed by bank or insurance regulators. That raised an immediate question about which agency would enforce the proposed prohibition.

Banking and insurance testimony
Amelia Galdieri, New Hampshire bank commissioner, said her office would likely face increased complaints and would need additional legal and examiner staff to implement the bill, and she noted the text could reach national‑bank activities over which the state has no jurisdiction. Ryan Hale of the New Hampshire Bankers Association argued the bill would host unintended consequences, undermine risk‑based decision‑making and make banks “guilty until proven innocent.”

Insurers urged caution
Representatives of State Farm and Allstate told lawmakers that underwriting freedom is essential to insurance availability and affordability; they warned that limiting insurers’ ability to consider risk factors could shift costs to other consumers and reduce market capacity. Industry speakers also noted the insurance code already provides oversight and consumer remedies.

Other stakeholder views
Groups including New Hampshire Businesses for Social Responsibility and national consumer groups expressed concerns about arbitrary denials and supported transparency; attorney general staff identified gaps in enforcement jurisdiction that would need resolution.

Next steps
With strong opposition from regulated industries and state regulators, the committee closed the public hearing on HB 359 and will schedule subcommittee work; several witnesses recommended additional technical drafting and fiscal analysis before any votes.