Relating to liability or other insurance coverage provided by the Board of Risk and Insurance Management to any entity for which such coverage is permissive under state code
The bill primarily affects local entities that might rely on BRIM for insurance, such as public schools, charitable organizations, and other local organizations that are not mandated to have insurance under state law. By maintaining the moratorium on new insurance coverage, the bill is intended to allow these organizations to continue operating under their existing coverage arrangements without interruption, providing them with stability in an uncertain insurance market. The extension reflects ongoing concerns regarding the costs and availability of liability insurance for public entities, especially in the current economic climate.
House Bill 2015 aims to extend the existing moratorium on the provision of new or additional property and liability insurance coverage by the Board of Risk and Insurance Management (BRIM) to certain entities deemed to have permissive coverage under state law. Introduced on March 18, 2025, the bill restricts BRIM from providing coverage to political subdivisions, charitable organizations, and emergency medical services agencies, among others, until July 1, 2025. Notably, this moratorium will not affect current contracts or agreements already in place, nor will it inhibit the extension of existing insurance coverages for these entities.
Overall sentiment toward HB2015 appears to be pragmatic, focusing on the need for stability and continuity in insurance ownership for public entities. Proponents argue that extending the moratorium is a necessary step towards ensuring that local organizations do not face abrupt changes in insurance coverage, which could further strain their operational capabilities. However, there may also be concerns regarding the longer-term implications of such a moratorium on broader insurance markets and the potential inequalities it may introduce between different types of entities seeking insurance.
Despite the practical intentions behind the bill, some legislators may raise concerns about the implications of extending the moratorium indefinitely. Critics might argue that such restrictions could disincentivize competitive insurance offerings or prevent local entities from exploring potentially better coverage options. Additionally, there is a broader discussion regarding the role of state oversight versus local autonomy, particularly concerning how local entities manage their risk and insurance needs moving forward.