HB 1748
In CommitteeHouse
Insurance & credit study
Conducting a study of credit history, credit-based insurance scores, and other rate factors in making rates for personal insurance.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill directs the Washington Insurance Commissioner to study how insurers use credit history and credit-based insurance scores—and other factors—to set personal insurance rates, and whether these practices unfairly impact people based on race, income, or other characteristics. It requires data collection, expert analysis, and a report with policy recommendations for lawmakers by late 2026.
- Requires the Office of the Insurance Commissioner to study how insurers use credit history, credit-based insurance scores, and other rating factors that may disproportionately impact people based on race, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, or national origin.
- Mandates that insurers provide requested data to support the study, including information on how these factors affect premiums, rates, and eligibility for coverage.
- Requires the Insurance Commissioner to contract with actuaries and other experts to analyze the impact of current practices and identify alternative rating methods that avoid discriminatory outcomes.
- Calls for analysis of how current and alternative rating methods affect consumer costs, insurance availability, and fairness across demographic groups.
- Requires the Insurance Commissioner to submit a preliminary report by December 31, 2025, and a final report by September 15, 2026, with policy recommendations for the legislature—including whether to allow, prohibit, or limit use of credit-based scoring.
- Ensures that data collected for the study is confidential and protected from public disclosure, though aggregate-level findings may be published publicly.
Who is affected
- Insurance companies — Insurance companies that sell personal insurance (like auto, home, or renters insurance) in Washington must share data and cooperate with the study, and may need to adjust their rating practices if new rules are adopted.
- Personal insurance consumers — Residents who use credit history to help determine their insurance premiums—especially those from lower-income, racial, ethnic, or immigrant communities—may be affected if the study leads to changes in how insurers assess risk.
- Washington State Legislature — State lawmakers will use the study’s findings and recommendations to consider new laws about how insurance companies set rates and evaluate eligibility.
- Office of the Insurance Commissioner — The Insurance Commissioner’s office must lead the study, hire consultants, collect data, and report findings—requiring staff time, expertise, and resources.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The study directly addresses whether credit-based insurance scoring disproportionately harms people of color, low-income residents, and immigrants—groups historically excluded from traditional credit systems—potentially leading to reforms that reduce discriminatory pricing and expand equitable access to insurance.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), (3)(c)(i), (3)(c)(ii), (3)(c)(iii)By analyzing alternative rating methods that avoid credit history, the study may identify fairer, more transparent risk-assessment tools that reduce premium spikes for low-credit Washingtonians—especially seniors, disabled people, or recent immigrants—who may have limited credit but stable income or assets.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)(ii), (3)(c)(iii), (4)If credit-based scoring is found to disparately impact renters (e.g., via renters insurance or home insurance eligibility), reforms could improve housing stability by making insurance more affordable and accessible—reducing one barrier to securing and maintaining housing.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)(i), (3)(c)(iii), (4)Identifying and evaluating alternative rating methods could reduce over-reliance on proxies for race or class (e.g., ZIP code–based risk), which may improve trust in insurance systems and reduce disparities in claims denials or coverage limits for marginalized communities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)(iv), (4)Affordable auto and home insurance can reduce financial shocks that lead to medical debt or delayed care—especially for low-income households—so reforms that lower premiums for vulnerable groups may indirectly improve health outcomes and access to care.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)(iii), (4)
Potential Concerns (5)
If the study leads to legislation banning or restricting use of credit-based insurance scores, insurers may face higher administrative and actuarial costs to develop alternative risk-assessment models, and may reduce product variety or exit certain market segments—potentially increasing premiums for some consumers or reducing coverage options, especially in high-risk or rural areas.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)(ii), (c)(iii)Confidentiality of insurer-provided data (non-disclosure under chapter 42.56 RCW) may limit public or legislative oversight of insurance practices, reducing transparency around how risk-based pricing affects vulnerable populations—even as the study itself aims to improve fairness.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)The study’s cost—funded from existing OIC budget or requiring new appropriation—diverts resources from other regulatory functions, potentially weakening oversight capacity in other high-risk areas (e.g., fraud, solvency), especially if staffing or expertise is constrained.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact section; Sec. 1(3)(c)Alternative risk-rating models (e.g., usage-based or neighborhood-level) may inadvertently increase premiums for low-credit individuals if they lack access to alternative data sources (e.g., stable employment, utility payments), especially if the new models correlate with race or geography—potentially worsening affordability despite good faith intent.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)(iii)The 2033 sunset date creates regulatory uncertainty: insurers may delay long-term investments in fairer pricing systems, and if the legislature fails to act by 2033, any reforms could be abandoned—leaving current practices in place without accountability.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(6) (sunset 2033)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income Washingtonians—particularly people of color, immigrants, and renters—are most likely to be priced out or overcharged under current credit-based models. If the study confirms disparate impact, reforms could significantly improve affordability and access to essential insurance coverage.
Insurers may face compliance costs and potential revenue impacts if credit-based scoring is restricted, but large insurers with sophisticated actuarial teams are better positioned to adapt than small or regional carriers—potentially accelerating industry consolidation.
The OIC gains authority to investigate and recommend reforms, but must absorb study costs and manage politically sensitive data—potentially straining limited staff resources and exposing the office to industry pushback.
State lawmakers gain evidence-based guidance for future legislation, but may face pressure from insurers and real estate/lending industries if reforms threaten entrenched pricing models—delaying or watering down reforms.
Real estate agents, mortgage lenders, and landlords often rely on insurance eligibility as a proxy for financial reliability—so changes to credit-based scoring could indirectly affect housing market dynamics and tenant screening practices.