Asm. Kenneth Blankenbush

Contended that statistics prove certain breeds, particularly pit bulls, are more dangerous, citing 64% of fatal bites attributed to pit bulls and over $1.2 million in annual claims. Argued the bill handcuffs underwriters and forces non-dog-owning policyholders to subsidize higher claims costs through premium increases.

Argued that pit bulls and similar breeds account for 50-60 percent of dog bites according to police and hospitalization statistics, and that insurance companies should be able to adjust rates based on breed risk, similar to how they adjust rates for automobile accidents or home location.

Contended that adding more wording to declarations pages will not clarify coverage and people will read less, not more. Also corrected that flood zones are federally determined, not defined by insurance companies.

Explained his no vote by citing insurance fraud courses showing financial stress is a primary cause of fraudulent claims. Without access to financial information, insurers cannot detect fraud driven by financial or tax stress.

Explained his no vote by noting that insurance fraud courses identify financial stress as a primary cause of fraudulent claims. Argued the bill is poorly written and would prevent insurers from investigating claims where financial stress indicators suggest potential fraud.

Existing readability law already requires clear language; standardization will harm commercial lines where each business has unique needs; could drive policyholders to self-insure or purchase offshore coverage outside DFS regulatory authority.

The mandate will increase premiums statewide for all homeowners, even those in areas without sewage backup risk. This follows the California model that drove major insurers out of the state, threatening competition and affordability.

Argued the bill would negatively impact consumers and the rental industry, increase premiums, reduce policy availability, and disproportionately harm lower-income renters who would absorb higher rental costs.

Argued from 40+ years in the insurance business that exclusions, particularly for water damage, cannot be adequately summarized without extensive legal language. The bill will create another unread form and may confuse policyholders rather than help them.

Supported higher uninsured/underinsured limits but objected to automatic opt-out approach, arguing it removes consumer choice and control over premium costs, and that consumers should decide whether to pay extra premiums.

Questioned whether the bill's emergency provisions adequately address situations where a missing person's phone location could be lifesaving, and expressed concern that the warrant requirement could impede legitimate investigative needs.

Argued that 15-30 days is unrealistic for homeowner claims during major disasters, citing examples where contractors cannot be obtained within that timeframe and roads may be impassable. Expressed concern that insurers would be forced to approve or deny claims without complete information and contractor estimates. Noted the bill has been pending for nine years and remains problematic.

Stated the bill was introduced in 1995 and remains problematic, voting in the negative.

Contended that declaration pages already provide limits, terms, premiums, and deductibles, and that the bill merely reformats existing information in red ink without adding consumer value. He noted the 16-point type requirement would make the summary impractically large.

Argued that standardized definitions eliminate business flexibility and force commercial owners to purchase unnecessary coverages, as each business has unique insurance needs that cannot be addressed by one-size-fits-all standards.