Changes the process by which a dispute between the insured and their insurance company, concerning property damages and requires that the umpire appraisers shall be disinterested and the cost shared equally.
Should S0901 be enacted, it will amend existing motor vehicle appraisal provisions in the Rhode Island General Laws. The proposed changes require that an impartial umpire appraiser be selected to resolve disagreements that arise from initial appraiser assessments. Additionally, if the disparity between appraisal amounts exceeds a specified percentage, costs will be borne by the insurer. This legislative change seeks to streamline the claims process, incentivize timely inspections, and promote consumer protections against potential insurer intimidation or misrepresentation of rights.
S0901, introduced by Senators Gallo, Tikoian, Lawson, LaMountain, DiPalma, and Sosnowski, establishes a revised process for resolving disputes related to property damage claims between insured individuals and their insurance companies. The bill asserts that in cases where both parties cannot agree on the loss amount, they have the rights to pursue an independent appraisal process. This process involves selecting disinterested appraisers from Rhode Island, which aims to foster fairness and transparency during the resolution of claims regarding motor vehicle damages.
The general sentiment surrounding S0901 appears to be supportive among consumer advocacy groups who value enhanced transparency and fairness in insurance practices. Proponents of the bill recognize it as a necessary evolution in how insurance companies handle appraisal disputes, especially to prevent potential biases that could arise from the insurer's chosen appraiser. However, some insurance industry representatives may express concerns about the bill, particularly regarding the administrative complexities and additional costs it may impose on the industry.
Some notable points of contention include the efficiency of the proposed appraisal process and provisions regarding appraiser selection. Critics may argue that the new appraisal system could lead to longer resolution times if disinterested appraisers are not readily available, thus delaying compensation for the insured. Furthermore, the requirement for an umpire appraiser, especially in high-discrepancy cases, might add to the overall costs, making insurers wary of potential financial implications stemming from frequent disputes.