Rebuilding Insurance Fairness in North Carolina

Prepared for public discussion
Brent Roberson · September 2026

The concern

North Carolina families, farmers, truck owners and small businesses need insurance that is financially sound and realistically affordable. The State cannot eliminate storms, expensive vehicle repairs, medical costs or the cost of skilled emergency recovery. It can require transparent prices, fair payment choices and enforceable rules in markets where customers have little practical bargaining power.

Recent homeowners increases show the pressure. The 2025 settlement approved statewide-average base-rate increases of 7.5% in 2025 and another 7.5% in 2026, with larger increases in some coastal and eastern territories. Consent-to-rate data also show that many homeowners are paying above the Rate Bureau’s manual premium. At the same time, commercial vehicle owners can face large towing and recovery bills after a crash when they did not choose the towing company or negotiate a price.

The proposed North Carolina Insurance Affordability & Accountability Plan contains three separate reforms. Each could stand on its own.

1. Fair commercial towing and recovery bills

North Carolina should build on Mississippi’s statewide commercial-towing framework while adding stronger billing, release and appeal protections.

The State would publish maximum line-item rates for government-directed and other nonconsensual commercial recoveries. Qualified towing companies would remain entitled to fair payment for specialized equipment, trained personnel, hazardous conditions and around-the-clock readiness, but a company called to a wreck would not be allowed to write its own blank check.

Every bill would have to identify the equipment, workers, tasks, times, rates, photographs, subcontractor costs and storage charges. Ordinary services could not be billed twice under different names.

When part of a bill is disputed, the owner could pay the undisputed amount, secure the disputed amount and obtain release of the truck, trailer and cargo. Storage charges would stop, and an independent decision would be required quickly—generally within ten business days. Proven overcharges would be refunded, and repeated or knowing violations could lead to penalties or removal from government rotation lists.

2. Honest premium pricing and payment

An approved insurance rate should be meaningful. When an insurer charges above the approved manual rate through consent-to-rate pricing, the customer should receive a clear comparison, the exact dollar and percentage difference, the specific risk facts supporting the higher price and a genuine opportunity to consent or appeal. Silence, automatic renewal or payment should not substitute for informed consent.

Paying over time should not create a second insurance price. A customer who makes every payment on time should pay the same total premium whether paying annually, monthly, biweekly or under another offered schedule. The rule would cover interest, installment charges, finance charges, processing fees and renamed versions of the same penalty. It would not excuse late or missed premiums, eliminate lawful cancellation procedures or prevent legitimate premium changes caused by coverage or exposure changes.

North Carolina should also modernize the driver-risk portion of automobile pricing. Clean driving should earn timely and explainable credit. Insurers may still consider the vehicle, coverage, mileage, territory, claim severity and other lawful risk factors, but proprietary scores should not hide why a driver is being charged more. Customers should have a free correction and appeal process, and voluntary telematics should include meaningful privacy protections.

3. Study a policyholder-owned insurance option

The proposal does not create a state insurance company. It authorizes only an independent 12-to-18-month feasibility study of whether a policyholder-owned automobile insurer could create meaningful matched-risk savings through lower acquisition, administrative or profit costs.

Any future pilot would require a separate act of the General Assembly. It would need private capitalization, adequate rates, required reinsurance, nonassessable policies, independent management and a safe exit plan. The State would provide no claims guarantee, open credit line or taxpayer-backed bailout. If an independent analysis cannot demonstrate solvency and meaningful savings without taxpayer exposure, the option should not proceed.

Oversight and public accountability

The Department of Insurance should publish understandable information about approved and actual premiums, consent-to-rate use, complaints, appeals, cancellations, nonrenewals and territorial availability. Towing regulators should publish maximum rates, qualified companies, complaint outcomes, refunds and disciplinary actions.

Implementation should be phased and measured. Regulators should monitor whether reforms reduce unfair charges without causing insurers or responsible towing companies to leave underserved areas. Rate adequacy, market capacity and the ability to pay legitimate claims must remain protected.

Bottom line

This plan is not a blanket rate freeze, an attack on responsible towing companies or a promise of government insurance. It is a market-rules proposal: publish the real price, make approved rates meaningful, reward verified safe driving, stop penalties for timely installment payments, release property while disputed charges are reviewed and study additional competition without putting taxpayers behind the risk.