After tornadoes recently tore through Iowa causing property damage, lawmakers are looking to make changes to a recently passed bill that limits the role of insurance appraisers.
The bill in question, House File 2299, states that appraisers cannot settle disputes between insurers and policyholders about how the damage in a claim occurred. Instead, the bill prescribes that appraisers stick to their role of determining the cash value of a loss. The proposal passed the House unanimously late last month.
But the situation has changed, and a Senate subcommittee is taking a second, harder look at the bill following a deadly series of tornadoes.
The tornado outbreak that occurred between March 05 and 07 saw at least 16 confirmed tornadoes slam the Midwest region, mostly centered on Iowa. It caused more than 56,000 power outages across the Midwest and at least seven deaths in Iowa – four of which were in the same family.
“This past weekend, we had horrific disasters across our state, including in my community,” said Senator Zach Nunn, R-Bondurant. “. . . While this bill passed the Iowa House on a largely bipartisan or completely bipartisan package, I want to make sure that we have a bill that really takes care of the policy owner first, specifically those who have been impacted by catastrophic loss.”
Industry officials had argued that the bill as it is would be beneficial. Iowa Insurance Institute lobbyist Brittany Lumley maintained that a previous Supreme Court decision in 2018 had broadened the power of appraisers too much, and that HF 2299 would return them to their original roles.
“It’s just making sure that the appraisers stick to the loss and the cost of the damage, as opposed to the coverage and causation disputes, which are best left to the courts,” said Lumley.
But lawyer Tim Johnson of Cedar Rapids disagreed with this notion. Johnson claimed that the Iowa Supreme Court decision in question did not change state law, adding that it “upheld what had been the law in Iowa since 1940.”
Iowa Capital Dispatch reported that legislators on the Senate subcommittee did not immediately move the bill. It was also reported that Nunn had asked stakeholders to propose amendments to the bill before it moved to a full committee.
