AB1986 adds Insurance Code Section 679.91 and forces insurers to produce parallel premium estimates when a consumer asks for a residential property insurance quote. Specifically, the insurer must supply the standard quote and a second quote reflecting the price if the property were certified as “hardened” by a home hardening certification program established or approved by the State Fire Marshal.
The change is a disclosure and transparency measure: it does not itself create a subsidy or mandate insurers to change underwriting rules, but it requires carriers to calculate and present the hypothetical effect of home-hardening certification on premiums. That makes the cost/benefit of retrofits visible to homeowners, while shifting implementation questions—documentation, timing, and program standards—to regulators and certification bodies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires an insurer, when asked for a residential premium quote, to provide two figures: the price for the property as insured now and the price if the property were certified as "hardened" by a State Fire Marshal-authorized program. The statute is limited to quotes; it does not mandate coverage or require insurers to offer a discount unless their rates and rules already permit one.
Who It Affects
The rule targets insurers writing policies identified in Section 675 (residential property lines) and the agents or brokers who request or deliver quotes on their behalf. It also engages the State Fire Marshal because certification must come from programs the marshal establishes or approves.
Why It Matters
By forcing carriers to quantify the premium impact of home-hardening certification, the bill aims to make retrofit economics visible to consumers and stimulate demand for hardening work. For insurers and regulators, the law creates new quoting, modeling, and verification tasks that will affect operations and supervisory attention.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB1986 inserts a single new statutory requirement into the Insurance Code: when someone requests a residential property insurance premium quote, the insurer must produce a pair of prices — one for the property as currently constituted and a second that shows what the premium would be if the home were certified as "hardened" under a program established or approved by the State Fire Marshal. The statute ties the hardened scenario to an official certification program rather than leaving the term undefined, which centralizes technical standards with the Fire Marshal's office.
The bill is narrowly focused on quotes. It does not change underwriting standards, require insurers to reduce premiums, or amend existing rating law; instead, it obliges carriers to run a hypothetical calculation and report it to the requester.
In practice that means insurers must decide how to model the risk reduction associated with a certification, what documentation to require to produce the hardened price, and whether to produce an estimate or a rate based on existing actuarial schedules.Operationally, the requirement will touch several functions inside an insurer or agency: quoting systems must accommodate a second-calculation path, data collection forms may need fields for certification status or pending certification, and training will be required so agents accurately explain the two numbers. The State Fire Marshal's certification programs become the pivot for the whole policy: insurers will base the hardened quote on compliance with whatever technical standards those programs set, so the marshal's program design will materially affect how large or meaningful the quoted premium difference is.The statute leaves several practical issues unresolved.
It does not set a timeframe for producing the dual quote, it does not instruct how insurers should verify a claimed certification at quote time, and it does not specify whether the hardened quote must reflect actual binding rates or may be an illustrative estimate. Those gaps will matter to carriers calculating costs, to agents advising homeowners, and to certification providers marketing their programs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a single new section—679.91—to the Insurance Code requiring dual premium quotes for residential property upon request.
Certification qualifying a property as 'hardened' must come from a home hardening program established or approved by the State Fire Marshal.
The obligation attaches at the point of a consumer’s request for a premium quote; the insurer must present both the current-state price and the hardened-state price.
AB1986 addresses only quotes and disclosure—nowhere does it compel insurers to offer coverage, renewals, or specific discounts tied to the hardened certification.
The text contains no procedural details: it does not specify documentation standards, timelines for producing the quotes, enforcement remedies, or changes to rate filing practices.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Dual-quote requirement tied to State Fire Marshal certification
This is the statute’s entirety: when a consumer requests a residential property premium quote, the insurer must provide the price for the property now and the price if the property were certified as "hardened" by a home hardening certification program that the State Fire Marshal has established or approved. The provision places the certification authority with the State Fire Marshal rather than leaving private vendors to define the term, which channels technical judgments to a public agency. For carriers, the operative obligation is narrow but specific: run and disclose a second premium calculation tied to that certification.
Applies to insurers writing policies listed in Section 675
The statute references insurers of a policy specified in Section 675, so its reach is constrained to the residential property lines identified by that cross-reference. Practically, that means typical homeowners and dwelling fire policies are covered; commercial or specialty coverages that fall outside Section 675 are not the target. Insurers and agents should look to Section 675 for the precise policy classes covered.
What the statute leaves to regulators, insurers, and certifiers
AB1986 prescribes the output (two quotes) but not the inputs or processes: it does not define proof requirements for certification at quote time, it does not mandate whether the hardened quote must be a binding premium, and it does not create an enforcement mechanism or penalty structure. Those implementation details will fall to the State Fire Marshal, the Department of Insurance, insurers’ internal procedures, or future regulation or guidance.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Homeowners in wildfire-prone areas — they gain transparent, side-by-side pricing that clarifies whether investing in hardening certification is likely to reduce insurance costs and by how much.
- Home-hardening contractors and certifiers — clearer demand signals and a marketable credential if the State Fire Marshal’s program becomes the industry standard for insurers’ hardened-rate calculations.
- State Fire Marshal programs — increased relevance and uptake as certification becomes a trigger for insurers to produce hardened pricing information, strengthening public-private alignment on wildfire resilience.
Who Bears the Cost
- Insurers and insurance agents — they must modify quoting systems, train staff, and develop modeling and verification protocols to produce a second, hardened premium estimate on request.
- Department of Insurance and the State Fire Marshal — the marshal may need to scale certification programs and the DOI may face inquiries and calls for guidance or rulemaking, creating administrative workload without funding in the bill.
- Smaller carriers and brokers — fixed compliance costs (system changes, actuarial work) disproportionately affect smaller entities with fewer IT resources, potentially increasing market consolidation pressure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits greater consumer transparency and an incentive for wildfire retrofits against the operational and regulatory strain of obliging insurers to model a hypothetical mitigation state without setting the technical and procedural standards needed to make those comparisons reliable and fair.
AB1986 is a disclosure mandate dressed as consumer empowerment, but its practical effect will depend entirely on the technical work left off the statutory page. The statute ties the hardened quote to State Fire Marshal programs, which centralizes standard-setting, but it does not prescribe how those programs must measure risk reduction, what documentation a homeowner must provide at quote time, or whether the hardened figure is an illustrative estimate or a rate derivable from filed schedules.
That ambiguity risks inconsistent consumer experiences: one insurer’s "hardened" model could produce a meaningful premium reduction while another’s produces a trivial change, even for identical certification.
There is also an administrative trade-off. Producing a second quote requires insurers to build new modeling pathways and verification checks into their quoting workflow; carriers will need guidance on acceptable assumptions and on whether to treat an asserted, not-yet-completed certification differently.
The State Fire Marshal may face pressure to accelerate or standardize certifications, but the bill provides no resources to expand program capacity. Finally, the lack of enforcement language raises questions about compliance monitoring and remedies if insurers ignore the requirement or deliver mechanically inconsistent hardened quotes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.