While lawmakers in some states meet year-round, the 2025 legislative session ends before mid-year in many states, meaning the window for passage of collision-related bills is approaching.
Utah
In Utah, for example, lawmakers earlier this year saw a bill, HB 522, introduced that would require any non-OEM crash parts used be “substantially equivalent in quality and function to OEM aftermarket crash parts.” The Automotive Body Parts Association, which represents manufacturers and distributors of non-OEM parts, voiced its opposition to the legislation. The bill also would have required insurers to cover the difference in market value (diminished value) of an insured’s vehicle following a claim using a method to be established by the state’s insurance department. But the Utah legislative session ended in March without passage of the bill.
Washington
Lawmakers in Washington state are set to adjourn in just a few weeks, with two collision-related bills. The first, SB 5721, would require all insurance policies issued or renewed in the state to include a right to appraisal clause -- something many shops view as an effective way for consumers to settle disagreements over the cost of their loss.
“If insurers are acting in good faith now, there should be no reason for them to have any fear of this bill passing because it’s not going to affect them,” Justin Lewis, a shop owner from Redmond, representing the Washington Independent Collision Repairer’s Association, told lawmakers at a hearing on the bill earlier this year.
David Forte of the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner also voiced support for the bill, saying it offers consumers “a dispute resolution pathway that does not involve hiring an attorney or contacting the regulator.”
But representatives of three regional or national associations for insurance companies each voiced opposition, saying the legislation comes at a time of already rapidly increasing costs for insurers and their policyholders.
The Washington Senate voted 29-20 in March to pass the bill, sending it back to the House, where a version of the legislation had stalled in committee. That committee in early April gave a do-pass recommendation to an amended version; that amendment eliminated a provision requiring the insurer to reimburse the insured for the cost of the appraisal if it was determined the loss exceeded $500 more than the insurer was previously offering. If the House passes that version of the bill, representatives from both chambers would need to hammer out the differences between the two bills soon if it is to move forward.
Also stalled in a Washington state House committee is another bill, SB 5331, already passed by the Senate, that would give the insurance commissioner the authority to not just fine an insurer violating insurance code but also order payment of restitution if the insurer possesses money or other property that is owed to another person. Insurance Commissioner Patty Kuderer has testified in favor of the bill, saying policyholders sometimes are forced to go to court if an insurer violates state law, and the legislation would allow policyholders to receive financial justice quicker, without clogging the court system.
Montana
In Montana, a House committee voted in late March to table a bill, SB 356, already passed by the Senate, that would prohibit insurers from disregarding or asking a shop to disregard OEM repair instructions. That vote dimmed the bill’s chances of passage before the legislature is scheduled to adjourn in early May.
Kansas
The Kansas House and Senate each passed differing versions of a bill, HB 2043, that would require insurance companies to respond to inquiries from the insurance commissioner within two weeks, rather than the current 15 business days. A committee with members from both chambers must now work out the differences in the two versions before the legislative session there ends May 6.
Vermont
In Vermont, legislators are scheduled to conclude this year’s session in early May as well. They have yet to act on a bill, HB 384, introduced in the House that would require the state’s Commissioner of Financial Regulation to establish -- based on a market survey of shop rates and rates paid by insurers in Vermont and other New England states -- a minimum hourly insurance reimbursement rate for labor related to auto body repairs, along with a formula for annually adjusting this minimum based on the Consumer Price Index.
Minnesota
Also facing an end to the legislative session in mid-May are a pair of Minnesota collision-related bills, SF 2209 and HF 1322, that would require insurers to pay all costs to return a motor vehicle to pre-loss condition. This “assumption of cost,” under the legislation, could only be reduced if the insurer identifies in writing to the insured or claimant and shop “any recommended repairs or costs that have been denied,” along with “confirmation that a denied repair or cost is not material to the vehicle’s safe operation, and that the insurer assumes liability for a denied repair or cost that directly causes a safety hazard.” No hearings on the bills had been held as of early April.
Another piece of state legislation not moving in recent months has been an Illinois bill, HB 2472, that would prohibit an insurer from specifying -- or a shop from using -- any repair procedure that is not in compliance with automaker directives. The legislation states OEM parts or automaker-recommended ADAS calibration tools are not required if the parts or tools used are at least equal in like kind and quality. Lawmakers there are scheduled to adjourn in late May.
John Yoswick