Proposed Legislation Could Make Homeowners’ Insurance Unaffordable for Many Illinoisans

Vote NO on HB 3799

Proposed Legislation Would Make Homeowners’ Insurance Unaffordable for Many Illinoisans

Vote NO on HB 3799

Bottom Line

HB 3799 (SA 2 & 3) is harmful for Illinois consumers. It could increase premiums, reduce competition, and destabilize a market that has served Illinois well for decades. For the sake of affordability and consumer choice, lawmakers should VOTE NO.

Bottom Line

HB 3799 (SA 2 & 3) is harmful for Illinois consumers. It will increase premiums, reduce competition, and destabilize a market that has served Illinois well for decades. For the sake of affordability and consumer choice, lawmakers should VOTE NO.

The insurance market in Illinois works — and consumers are already benefiting

We know many families are feeling the squeeze from higher costs – not just in homeowners insurance but across everyday life.  A rise in severe weather events and broader inflationary pressures have driven claims and expenses up in Illinois and around the country. Yet Illinois’ insurance market is helping blunt those pressures by keeping coverage available and competitive. Illinois has enjoyed an open, competitive insurance market for more than 50 years. Here are key indicators of our strong market:

  • Illinois remains middle‑of‑the‑pack nationally in homeowners’ rates, even though Illinois has more hail damage claims than any other state except Texas.

  • Over 200 insurers are actively competing for business in Illinois.

Why the bill is harmful

This proposal (HB 3799 SA 2 & 3) would create a regulatory structure that is more extreme than what exists in any other state, introducing instability into a market that is currently functioning well.

Major concerns:

  • Unpredictable complicated system combining “file‑and‑use” and “prior approval” — an untested model that will drive some insurers out of the marketplace;

  • Retroactive disapproval and refunds, a mechanism used in only one state (Louisiana), and even there it is controversial and unproven;

  • Undefined “complete filing” standard, allowing the Department of Insurance to delay filings indefinitely, creating rate inadequacy and operational chaos;

  • Reduced competition, which historically leads to higher premiums and fewer choices for consumers.

Why the bill is harmful

This proposal (HB 3799 SA 2 & 3) would create a regulatory framework that is more extreme than what exists in any other state, introducing instability into a market that is currently functioning well.

 

Major concerns:

  • Unclear and unpredictable rate review process combining “file‑and‑use” and “prior approval” — an untested model that could drive some insurers out of the marketplace;

  • Unlimited and unpredictable retroactive refund demands – a risky and unproven design that will create confusion in the marketplace;

  • No clear standard for a “complete filing”, allowing the Department of Insurance to delay filings indefinitely, leading to rate inadequacy and operational chaos;

  • Reduced competition, which historically leads to higher premiums and fewer choices for consumers.

Better, more responsible alternatives exist

Instead of HB 3799 (SA 2 & 3), lawmakers have put forward more balanced alternatives that would increase oversight without destabilizing the market. These proposals would:

  • Reinstate standards that rates must not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory;

  • Prohibit cost‑shifting between states;

  • Require notice to policyholders for rate increases above 10% due to non‑contract factors;

  • Transition Illinois to “prospective file‑and‑use,” giving the Department of Insurance authority to disapprove rates before they take effect — without destabilizing the market.

These alternative approaches would strengthen oversight without harming consumers or competition.