SSB1158

[ElkHunter]

I'm sure insurance companies will give this a big /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif


Senate Study Bill 1158
SENATE FILE
BY (PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES BILL
BY CHAIRPERSON DEARDEN)


Passed Senate, Date Passed House, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays Vote: Ayes Nays
Approved

A BILL FOR

1 An Act imposing a surcharge on automobile liability insurance
2 policies for the benefit of deer herd population management,
3 including the help us stop hunger program, and making an
4 appropriation.
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
6 TLSB 2026SC 83
7 av/nh/14

PAG LIN



1 1 Section 1. NEW SECTION. 515.52 AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ==
1 2 DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT SURCHARGE == APPROPRIATION.
1 3 1. A policy or contract of insurance against loss or
1 4 expense arising or resulting from accidents occurring by
1 5 reason of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile
1 6 is subject to a surcharge of twenty=five cents each time that
1 7 such a policy or contract is delivered, issued for delivery,
1 8 continued, or renewed in this state.
1 9 2. The surcharge shall be collected by the insurer from
1 10 the insured under such policy or contract and remitted to the
1 11 department of natural resources for use as provided in
1 12 subsection 3. An insurer, its agent, or a third=party
1 13 administrator is not entitled to any portion of the surcharge
1 14 as a fee or commission for its collection.
1 15 3. The moneys collected pursuant to this section shall be
1 16 used and are appropriated to the natural resource commission
1 17 for the purpose of deer herd population management, including
1 18 assisting with the cost of processing deer donated to the help
1 19 us stop hunger program administered by the commission.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> 1 20 EXPLANATION </span>
1 21 This bill imposes a 25=cent surcharge on each policy or
1 22 contract of automobile liability insurance that is delivered,
1 23 issued for delivery, continued, or renewed in this state. The
1 24 surcharge is to be collected by insurers from their insureds
1 25 under such policies, and no portion of the surcharge may be
1 26 taken as a fee or commission for its collection.
1 27 The moneys collected pursuant to the bill must be used and
1 28 are appropriated to the natural resource commission for the
1 29 purpose of deer herd population management, including
1 30 assisting with the cost of processing deer donated to the help
1 31 us stop hunger program.
1 32 LSB 2026SC 83
1 33 av/nh/14

 

[ElkHunter]

<span style="color: #FF0000">Lobbyists Declarations </span>


83rd General Assembly
SSB 1158

Bob Skow FEBRUARY 4, 2009
Against Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa

Fred Haskins FEBRUARY 4, 2009
Undecided IA. Insurance Institute

Larry Blixt FEBRUARY 4, 2009
Against Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa

Laverne Schroeder FEBRUARY 4, 2009
Against IA. Sportsman Members

Any one know Mr. Schroeder? I sure find myself on the opposite side of the fence on a lot of issues. Which seems a little odd, since he is a lobbyist for Ia. Sportsman

 

[shadowpeople]

Why don't deer hunters just get a break on their insurance for reducing deer numbers? A credit if you will for helping out the insurance companies.

 

[Iowabowtech]

Well, I like this idea to some degree because everyone would help out with funding management efforts instead of just hunters. If I'm reading it right though, this is a short sighted way to do it. Private companies should not be required to collect money to be redistributed back to the State even though it wouldn't hurt my feelings in many ways since in this case it's the whining insurance companies that would get the task. Although they may benefit from lower payouts for car/deer collisions through successful management, that still doesn't make it right, the government should collect it's own money IMO. Perhaps a similar fee applied to licensing/registering vehicles would be more palatable to me since the money would be collected and distributed within the umbrella of government.

 

[Fishbonker]

Aren't private companies already collecting money for the state in the form of sales tax? I think movie theaters also collect some sort of tax that isn’t a sales tax. Isn’t there a surcharge on liquor and cigarettes too? Tires?

A 25¢ surcharge on license plates would get more money than a 25¢ surcharge on a policy. A policy holder can have more than one car per policy, but every car has to have a license plate.

I like the insurance policy surcharge a lot more than raising the NR quota.

The ‘Bonker

 

[Iowabowtech]

Good points Bonker but my thought is that in this case, the State would be arbitrarily singling out one industry to do their work for them. Sales tax is a shared responsibility enjoyed by all retailers where this would seem to be a mandate upon preselected private companies to utilize their own resources to gather, document, and return fee money (not tax money) to the State. Again, I'm no insurace industry lover but it seems to be an overstep of power to me. Maybe the movie/tires examples have some truth though to a practice already ongoing, I'm not sure. If that is the case, I'd love to see as few instances of that sort of thing as possible in this and future decisions. Then again, I'm kind of a dreamer.

 

[WhitetailWarrior]

The licensing idea is better than insurance anyway because of all the people who don't even have insurance anyway....

 

[Liv4Rut]

The bad thing is if the insurance have to start to pay, all they are going to want to do is increase the amount of deer killed. They will push for more NR's IMO.

 

[ironwood]

I think the point here is that they have already created an atmosphere of higher doe harvest and they need to be part of the solution. It is good for their industry. Why should this be completely on the hunters backs?

 

[Iowabowtech]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ironwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the point here is that they have already created an atmosphere of higher doe harvest and they need to be part of the solution. </div></div>

Good point.

 

[blake]

PMA Memberships & Renewals and IBA Memberships & Renewals

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fishbonker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like the insurance policy surcharge a lot more than raising the NR quota.

The ‘Bonker
</div></div>

I agree we do NOT need more non residents hunting Iowa. I am not opposed to non resident hunters; I just think the current tag allocation for them is just right.

I think everyone in Iowa should have to pay. Down here we have people just driving around to watch the deer and wildlife. Many of them are non-hunters.

If I read this bill right, I think it is a good thing......as long as there are regulations to monitor the fees.....I could see the insurance companies pocketing a portion of it and the monies collected never reaching the intended programs.

PM
Ron Wyllie
Southwest Iowa IBA Area Representative
rwyllie@iowawhitetail.com