Texas House Bill HB1897

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Relating to dispute resolution for certain claims arising under insurance policies issued by the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan Association; authorizing fees.

Impact

The proposed changes under HB 1897 may significantly impact existing laws governing insurance claims in the state. It establishes explicit provisions regarding the conduct expected during dispute resolution and offers clear guidelines about the obligations of both the claimant and the association. Importantly, it precludes certain private actions against the FAIR Plan Association under previously applicable laws, establishing a stronger legal shield for the association while redefining the rights available to claimants. This shift is likely to affect the nature of claims handling and the degree to which policyholders can pursue disputes against the insurance association.

Summary

House Bill 1897 addresses the framework for dispute resolution concerning specific claims arising under the insurance policies issued by the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan Association. The bill introduces amendments to the Insurance Code, particularly emphasizing processes for resolving disputes that may arise regarding claims handling and coverage decisions. By instituting structured procedures for both appraisal and alternative dispute resolution, the bill aims to streamline how these disputes are managed, ultimately making the process more efficient for the insured parties.

Contention

One significant point of contention involves the restriction on bringing private actions against the FAIR Plan Association and how that could potentially limit the rights of consumers. Critics may argue that this could undermine consumer protections and make it harder for insured individuals to challenge unfavorable claims decisions. The mandatory use of appraisal processes prior to litigating disputes also raises discussions on the fairness and accessibility of dispute resolution mechanisms. Proponents assert that these measures would expedite resolutions and reduce legal costs, whereas opponents worry about possible disadvantages for policyholders.