Insurance bill aims to stop payments from restarting claim deadlines after Supreme Court ruling

Chairman Farmer introduced House Bill 11-17 as a statutory fix to address uncertainty following the state Supreme Court’s Bryant decision, which the author said had the practical effect of restarting prescriptive deadlines each time a payment is made. Farmer summarized the court’s footnote directing policy issues to the legislature and urged clarification so insurers aren’t effectively penalized for paying claims.

Adam Patrick, deputy commissioner of policy innovation and research with the Department of Insurance, told the committee the amendment under consideration was a cleanup to make clear the bill applies to first‑party property claims like homeowners coverage. Industry and consumer representatives discussed an additional consumer notice—language that would accompany payments to make clear that a payment does not interrupt prescription. Luke Williamson, representing a consumer group, described that writing as a consumer‑friendly safeguard; insurance trade associations said they were willing to discuss mechanics but cautioned about how electronic payments or automated processes would handle the notice.

Senators discussed adopting a cover‑letter or estimate language that would inform policyholders a payment does not extend the deadline to sue; committee members and industry agreed to continue refining the exact language before floor consideration. The committee adopted technical amendments and reported the bill with amendments.