Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2007 House Bill 4993: Impose new auto insurance company regulations
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Virgil Smith, Jr. (D) on June 28, 2007, to require auto insurance companies to submit to the state insurance commission complete data on premiums, aggregate claims and payments, risk assessment and premium pricing practices, profits, and much more; and prohibit insurers from raising rates without permission in advance from the commission, subject to public hearings.
- Referred to the House Insurance Committee on June 28, 2007.
- Reported in the House on April 10, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on April 16, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on April 16, 2008.
- Referred to the House Insurance Committee on June 28, 2007.
- Passed 59 to 49 in the House on April 16, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Motion by Rep. Kathy Angerer (D) on April 16, 2008, to give the bill immediate effect. The motion failed 60 to 48 in the House on April 16, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on April 22, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development and Regulatory Reform Committee on April 22, 2008.
Most Recent Comments
1) "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on April 20, 2008Rep. Emmons, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The chair of House Insurance Committee feels that auto insurance rates in Detroit are too high. In an effort to reduce these rates, he feels the state should play a larger role in regulating the market. His bill proposes that both the Attorney General and consumers should be able to challenge insurance companies if they feel rates are too high. The representative feels that this oversight should be mandated under state law.
However, I believe it is ironic that the sponsor of HB 4993 is also the sponsor of a previous insurance bill that eliminated Attorney General oversight of rate increases in regulated insurance markets and denied consumers the right to challenge rate increases which would result in higher insurance rates for those who can least afford it.
The question becomes one of continuity and consistency. Should the Attorney General have oversight? Should consumers have the ability to challenge rate increases? Should geography be used as a tool to determine insurance rates?”
Reply
Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No Vote on HB 4993
This has nothing to do with protecting all the citizens in the state and everything to do with subsidized of auto insurance rates in Detroit, at the expense of the rest of the state. It will allow the state and the Insurance commissioner to meddle in the private market. This all about politics and has nothing to do with good policy.”
Reply
Rep. Caswell, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
From the debate on the floor it became obvious that this bill was nothing more than an attempt to lower rates for Detroit citizens. This would result in my citizens getting higher rates or not being able to buy insurance at all if the companies leave the State.”
Reply
View Full Conversation
