Requires property/casualty insurance companies to submit certain zip code-level data to the department of financial services on nonrenewal rates, nonpayment cancellation rates, other cancellation rates, claim frequency rates, average claim amounts, paid loss ratios, and average premiums; requires property/casualty insurance companies that use a natural disaster risk model or scoring method to assign risk, information about such model or scoring method; authorizes a premium discount to policyholders of homeowners insurance or property/casualty insurance applicable to residential real property who demonstrate certain mitigation actions; requires insurers to post about such discounts on their public websites; relates to the timing of cancellation and nonrenewal notices for certain insurance policies; relates to increasing membership of the board governing the New York property insurance underwriting association; requires a quadrennial report on the activities of such association; increases such board membership to 23 including 6 directors appointed by the legislature and 4 directors appointed by the governor.

This bill requires property and casualty insurance companies in New York to provide detailed data about their cancellation and claim rates at the zip code level. It also allows discounts for homeowners who take steps to reduce risks from natural disasters and mandates that insurers inform the public about these discounts. Additionally, it updates the governance structure of the New York property insurance underwriting association to include more directors and requires regular reports on its activities.

Supporters of the bill argue that it enhances transparency in the insurance industry by requiring companies to disclose important data, which can help consumers make informed choices. They also see the premium discounts for risk mitigation as a proactive step to encourage homeowners to invest in safety measures, ultimately benefiting communities and reducing insurance costs.

Critics may contend that the bill places additional regulatory burdens on insurance companies, which could lead to higher operational costs and, subsequently, increased premiums for consumers. They might also argue that the focus on data collection could distract from addressing the underlying issues of affordability and accessibility in the insurance market.