WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 359

prohibiting denial of banking and insurance services based on any factor that is not quantitative, impartial, and risk-based as measured by an objective standard.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Mike Belcher and 3 co-sponsors

The bill requires banking and insurance decisions to be based on objective, measurable risk criteria rather than subjective or non-quantitative judgments.

Refer for Interim Study: MA VV 01/07/2026 HJ 1 P. 45
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 359

Summary of HB 359 (Session 2026, New Hampshire)

Purpose and Intent

HB 359 proposes prohibiting the denial of banking and insurance services based on factors that are not quantitative, impartial, and risk-based as measured by an objective standard. In short, the bill aims to prevent refusals or punitive changes to access for banking and insurance services that rely on subjective, non-objective criteria, ensuring decisions are driven by measurable risk assessments.

Key Provisions (Provisions and Changes)

  • Prohibition Scope
    • Prohibits denial or termination of banking services (e.g., account access, loans, payment processing) and insurance services (e.g., coverage, premium determination, policy issuance) on grounds that are not grounded in quantitative, impartial, and risk-based evaluation criteria.
  • Evaluation Standard
    • Requires that any decision to suspend, deny, or alter services must be based on objective, measureable risk assessments rather than qualitative or discretionary judgments that could reflect non-quantitative biases.
  • Policy and Compliance Framework
    • Likely mandates that financial and insurance entities adopt or demonstrate adherence to standardized, objective underwriting or risk-rating criteria.
    • May require documentation of the criteria used and the data supporting decisions, enabling transparency and review.
  • Enforcement and Remedies (Implied)
    • While not explicitly detailed in the action history, such bills typically establish oversight mechanisms, potential investigations, and remedies for violations (e.g., reinstatement of services, penalties, or consumer redress). Expect provisions for enforcement by state regulatory agencies.
  • Preemption and Consistency
    • Aims to align NH practices with a standard of objective risk-based decision-making across banking and insurance sectors, potentially influencing state-chartered institutions and licensed entities operating in New Hampshire.

Who Would Be Affected

  • Financial Institutions
    • Banks, credit unions, payment processors, and other entities providing banking services must ensure decisions to offer, deny, or modify services are based on objective risk criteria.
  • Insurance Providers
    • Carriers, reinsurers, agents, and other entities issuing or underwriting insurance policies must use quantitative risk-based standards for service access and policy terms.
  • Consumers/Businesses
    • Individuals and businesses seeking banking or insurance services would have increased protection against arbitrary or non-objective denial or terms.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Legislative History & Progress
    • Introduced and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Affairs in January 2025.
    • Underwent multiple committee hearings and work sessions in 2025, including executive sessions and public hearings.
    • The bill was retained and moved through interim study processes, with an interim study referral recorded on January 7, 2026.
  • Key Milestones
    • Public hearings and executive sessions occurred in 2025, indicating ongoing review and potential amendments.
    • As of the most recent action, the bill was referred for interim study in January 2026, suggesting it may undergo further analysis or potential revisions before any full floor vote.

Practical Implications

  • If enacted, the bill would establish a regulatory expectation that decisions regarding banking and insurance access adhere to objective, measurable risk criteria.
  • This could increase consistency in decision-making, reduce discretionary or biased denials, and heighten transparency in how service terms are determined.
  • Financial and insurance entities may need to enhance data collection, risk-modeling practices, and documentation to demonstrate objective criteria in decision processes.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to focus on potential regulatory penalties, anticipated compliance costs for institutions, or compare with similar protections in other states.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.