The Commissioner of Insurance adopts amendments to §21.1007, concerning restrictions on the use of underwriting guidelines based on previous mold damage, mold damage claims, a water damage claim, or appliance-related claims. The amendments are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 10, 2003, issue of the Texas Register (28 TexReg 8805).
The amendments to §21.1007 are necessary to implement Article 1 of Senate Bill (SB) 127, enacted by the 78th Legislature, that added new Article 5.35-4 to the Insurance Code and House Bill (HB) 329, enacted by the 78th Legislature, that added new Article 21.21-11 to the Insurance Code and requires the department to promulgate a Certificate of Mold Remediation pursuant to the Occupations Code §1958.154.The adopted amendments are necessary as it has come to the attention of the legislature and the department that certain insurance companies are declining to write residential property insurance based on the existence of previous mold damage or the filing of mold damage or water damage claims. The department believes that the apparent motivation for the use of water or mold damage claim history in underwriting is to offset losses resulting from mold damage claims and to avoid future claims for water and mold damage. The legislature and the department believe that certain underwriting decisions based on previous mold damage or mold damage claims that have been properly remediated or a water damage claim or an appliance-related claim are unfair and should be prohibited. Furthermore, declining to write residential property insurance based solely on previous mold damage or a mold or water damage claim or an appliance-related claim is unfair to consumers who may be offered policies that have greatly reduced water damage and mold damage coverage from that contained in the policies previously offered. These policies with the reduced water and mold damage coverage no longer expose insurers to the broad water and mold damage coverage that they were previously required to offer under the promulgated policies. Since the insurers' water and mold damage exposure may be significantly reduced, it is unfair for insurers to continue to use previous mold damage or a single mold or water damage claim underwriting guideline when they have little or no water or mold damage expos u re. Additionally, declining to write residential property insurance based solely on previous mold damage or a prior claim for mold or water damage or an appliance-related claim, regardless of the type of policy being offered, is unfair to consumers because, instead of underwriting each home based on the actual condition of the property, this practice unfairly denies coverage to a broad class of homes and applicants. While previous mold damage or a mold damage or a water damage claim or an appliance-related claim may be an indication to an insurer that further underwriting investigation is needed, the sole use of these factors to decline to write a risk is unfair to consumers because many insurable risks may be excluded by the use of such overly broad underwriting guidelines without considering other underwriting factors. The department made changes to the rule based on comments and for clarification. Specifically, the department changed the last sentence of the definition of appliance-related claim in subsection (b)(5) to provide that an appliance-related claim does not include the failure of an external attachment used to transport water to or from the plumbing system and also changed subsection (d)(2) of the rule to add language noting that appliance-related losses are a special class of non-weather related losses and that the notice in this regard must be specific to the insured's appliance-related loss history. The department added a new paragraph (4) to subsection (d) of the rule and renumbered the remaining paragraphs to clarify that an insurer may not reject or challenge a certification by an inspector not on an insurer's list unless the insurer re-inspects the property and specifies in writing the areas of deficiency to the consumer and maintains supporting documentation. The department changed subsection (d)(8) of the rule, formerly (d)(7), to specify that information on, rather than a list of, who may inspect and certify the proper remediation of an appliance-related claim may be obtained from the department. The department changed "underwriting decision" to "underwriting guideline" in subsection (e)(1) of the rule which by definition only applies to an applicant for insurance and further changed subsection (e)(1) to clarify that an insurer shall not use an underwriting guideline based upon previous mold damage or a prior mold damage claim filed either by the applicant or on the covered property. The department also added a paragraph (3) to subsection (e) to clarify that nothing contained in that subsection shall preclude an insurer from the surcharge and renewal provisions of Article 21.49-2B, Section 7. Further for clarification, the department added a reference to Article 5.35-4(3)(c) in subsection (d)(1) of the rule and also changed subsection (g) of the rule to delete the reference to subsection (d).
The adopted amendments to subsection (a) of §21.1007 state that the purpose of the section is to protect persons and property from being unfairly stigmatized by insurers providing residential property insurance to the person or property that had previous mold damage or has filed mold damage claims, a water damage claim, or certain appliance-related claims, under a residential property insurance policy. The adopted amendments to subsection (b) amend the definitions of residential property and underwriting guideline to conform to new statutory definitions and add new definitions for the terms insurer, appliance-related claim, and water damage claim. The adopted amendments to subsection (c) clarify the restrictions on an insurer's use of underwriting guidelines based solely upon a single prior water damage claim filed either by the applicant or on the covered property. The amendment to subsection (d) deletes the language "Nothing contained herein shall preclude an insurer from the surcharge and renewal provisions of Article 21.49-2B, Section 7" and adds this as new language to subsection (c) where the provision is applicable. Additionally, the amendment to subsection (d) adds new language to provide the restrictions on underwriting and rating and the requirements for the inspection and certification process of appliance-related claims. Adopted new subsection (e) implements the restrictions in new Article 21.21-11 on the use of previous mold damage or a claim for mold damage in underwriting residential property insurance. New subsection (f) provides the filing requirements for underwriting guidelines relating to previous mold damage, mold damage claims, and water damage claims. New subsection (g) specifies that subsection (c) applies only to residential property insurance policies that are delivered or issued for delivery after the effective date of this section.
Comment: Two commenters stated that SB 127 and HB 329 contain concepts that overlap and potentially conflict with each other. The commenters urged the department to recognize these conflicts and to provide regulatory guidance that reflects a consistent and logical approach to implementing these laws. The commenters observed that the department is interpreting these laws to prohibit an insurer from making an underwriting determination based on an unlimited number of mold claims, as long as proper remediation has taken place. The commenters believe that this interpretation is inconsistent with authorizing legislation which contains no prohibitions on non-renewing existing business. One commenter pointed out that since underwriting guidelines are required to be filed, it is important to interpret the legislation to provide reasonable guidance. Another commenter noted that the legislature has given the commissioner broad authority to reconcile and harmonize the statutes so insurers can know what they can and cannot underwrite.
Agency Response: The department notes that the restrictions on the use of underwriting guidelines based on previous mold damage, mold damage claims or water damage claims, and appliance-related claims are based on the specific authority granted to the commissioner by Articles 5.35-4 and 21.21-11. The department also believes that HB 329 clearly provides that insurers shall not make an underwriting decision based on mold claims that have been properly remediated and certified; however, the department has changed "underwriting decision" to "underwriting guideline" which by definition only applies to an applicant for insurance. Additionally, the department has added subsection (e)(3) to clarify that nothing contained in that subsection shall preclude an insurer from the surcharge and renewal provisions of Article 21.49-2B, Section 7. The department believes that insurers may adequately address concerns relating to the exposure of insuring applicants with a number of mold claims through rating. Rates must be based on sound actuarial principles related to actual or anticipated loss experience.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification that proposed §21.1007(e) apply to underwriting the property that is the subject of an application and not to the claims history of the individual applicant. One commenter stated that HB 329 applies only to property and that there is a need to distinguish a properly remediated claim from an applicant that has two or three prior mold claims in his abode. The commenter urged that the department find that HB 329 applies only to property or to adopt the mold rules to apply under the same rules as for water damage claims. In contrast, another commenter stated the belief that the statute applies both to property and applicant and further reads the rule as applying to both, but will assist with language to clarify that the rule applies to both person and property.
Agency Response: The department disagrees with some of the commenters' interpretation of the application of subsection (e), and the department has changed subsection (e) to clarify that an insurer shall not use an underwriting guideline based upon previous mold damage or a prior mold damage claim filed either by the applicant or on the covered property.
Comment: One commenter believes that the proposed rule improperly restricts an insurer's ability to charge rates based on prior water damage or mold damage claims.
Agency Response: The department's interpretation of the definition of underwriting guidelines would not place restrictions on an insurer's ability to rate general water damage and mold damage claims based on sound actuarial principles related to actual or anticipated loss experience.
Comment: Two commenters requested that the department develop a regulatory matrix as an interpretive guide to water, appliance, and mold claim underwriting limitations and to recognize the need for multiple inspections for appliance-related water damage claims to satisfy the remediation requirements of SB 127. One commenter also recommended that the department require copies of the relevant licenses to be attached to the various certificates and certifications referenced in the rule to ensure proper certification of the certifying entity.
Agency Response: The department believes that the suggestion of a regulatory matrix is helpful, and the department will consider developing an informative and consumer-friendly guide to reading this rule. With respect to the comment regarding the need for multiple inspections to satisfy the remediation requirements of appliance-related claims for SB 127, the department believes that the inspectors listed in the rule may have the knowledge and experience in the remediation of water damage to inspect and certify the proper remediation of an appliance-related water damage claim. Furthermore, insurers may provide a list of authorized inspectors to the claimant and presumably these authorized inspectors would be adequately trained to perform all aspects of the appliance-related water damage remediation inspection. The inspection and licensing issues raised by the commenters are relevant; however, the adopted rule establishes a clear framework for the remediation process which may obviate the additional documentation suggested by the commenters. If in the development of the process, more documentation is needed, the rule can be re-evaluated and amendments can be proposed as necessary.
Comment: Some commenters stated that it would be more appropriate to have two or three separate rules because both Chapter 5 and Chapter 21 of the Insurance Code have been amended, and there are many technical differences between the various legislative provisions enabling the proposed rules. Two commenters stated that the proposed rule should be part of Chapter 5 instead of Chapter 21 of the Texas Administrative Code where underwriting and rating are already otherwise addressed. One commenter stated that the activities the proposal seeks to address do not rise to the level of unfair trade practices, which can generally be categorized as dishonest, deceptive or fraudulent. Another commenter said that it should be made clear that the rule only applies to residential property insurance.
Agency Response: The department believes that one rule implementing the underwriting restrictions contained in SB 127 and HB 329 is an efficient and appropriate method of regulation since both pieces of legislation relate to underwriting water-related losses. The department notes that with the enactment of Articles 21.21-11 and 5.35-4, the commissioner was given specific authority to adopt rules concerning restrictions on the use of underwriting guidelines based on previous mold damage, mold damage claims or water damage claims. The retention of the rule in Chapter 21 of the Texas Administrative Code is consistent with this statutory framework. The department also believes that the rule's applicability to residential property insurance is clear on its face.
Comment: Several commenters felt that the definition of "appliance-related claim" should be clarified and further stated that the wording "permanently attached" creates a vague and imprecise guideline. Some commenters wanted to delete the phrase "that are not permanently attached to the appliance" and to note that tubing, hoses, and related clamps are not included based on the belief that these are maintenance items, while another commenter wanted to include "hoses" based on the belief that a hose is commonly considered to be part of an appliance.
Agency Response: The department has changed the last sentence of the definition of "appliance-related claim" to read as follows: "An appliance-related claim shall not include the failure of a plumbing system or an external attachment to the appliance used to transport water to or from the plumbing system." The department believes it is reasonable to exclude losses from this definition that may be maintenance-related.
Comment: Some commenters stated that the effective date language of the proposed rule should be clarified by stating applicability only to claims occurring on or after the effective date of the rule.
Agency Response: The department does not agree that applicability must be based on claims occurring on or after the effective date of the rule based on a clear reading of the authorizing legislation.
Comment: One commenter requested that the proposal clarify that the provisions of SB 127 apply only to policies for which an application was taken on or after the effective date of the act.
Agency Response: The department notes that the rule's requirements for general water damage claims apply to new business only in accordance with subsection (c). Subsection (d) of the rule concerning appliance-related claims applies to both new business and renewals pursuant to Article 5.35-4 §3(c). Thus for clarity, the department has changed subsection (g) of §21.1007 to delete the reference to subsection (d) to specify that the prohibition regarding general water damage claims applies to new business only.
Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should clearly apply to both applicants and existing insureds based on the stated purpose of Article 5.35-4 to protect persons and property from being unfairly stigmatized in obtaining residential property insurance. The commenter states that the use of the word "obtain" is broader than merely "apply" and that it includes obtaining insurance at the initial application as well as obtaining insurance at renewal. The commenter further stated the belief that the words "single" and "solely" no longer apply to water damage claims and should be deleted from the rule. The commenter noted that the legislature has used "solely" where it has deemed it necessary, such as in SB 14 in which "solely" was mentioned relating to the use of credit information, and the same terminology does not appear in SB 127 and HB 329. The commenter further recommended that the department amend the rule so that the prohibition on the use of water damage claims is similar to the new statutory prohibition and requirements associated with mold claims by prohibiting the use of water damage claims as a basis for underwriting if the damage has been inspected and certified that it was repaired properly. The commenter also stated that the reference to Article 21.21 should be in the adopted rule, but should be moved to the end of the rule so as to apply to the rule in its entirety.
Agency Response: The department believes that the amendments to §21.1007 are in accord with the statutory requisites as defined by the legislature and further believes that the adopted rule is an effective balance between the needs of consumers and the requirement to have a sound underwriting process that will increase the availability and affordability of residential property insurance in this state. Specifically, SB 127 defines underwriting guideline in a manner that is specific to accepting or rejecting an application. "Application" is defined as the act of applying or a form used in making a request. The department points out that the prohibition in Article 5.35-4 §3(a) is clearly limited to prospective insureds; however, existing insureds would continue to benefit from the protections of Article 21.49-2B with regard to general water damages claims. Further, the department has retained the use of "solely" and "single" in the adopted amendment and believes that this is consistent with the commissioner's authority to adopt rules to accomplish the purpose of the legislation. The use of the words "solely" and "single" represents an effective balance as it provides for fair treatment to consumers and does not unduly restrict an insurer's ability to underwrite. The department notes that the adopted rule implements the express provisions of HB 329 and SB 127; however, the department does not believe that it is necessary at this time to accept the commenter's recommendation to extend the mold claim prohibitions to the use of water damage claims. Regarding the reference to Article 21.21, the department notes that this reference was deleted in the proposal. The fact that §21.1007 no longer relies on Article 21.21 for its statutory authority does not preclude a consumer from pursuing a private cause of action if they are able to present evidence that the prohibited action is an unfair trade practice defined in section 4 of Article 21.21.
Comment: One commenter stated a concern that the language in the proposed rule allows an insurer to challenge and deny an inspection of an appliance-related claim if that inspection is not done by a person from a list provided by the insurance company. The commenter also states that this is in direct conflict with new statutory language and should be removed. The commenter stated that a problem could occur if an insured does not use an authorized inspector from the list thereby giving an insurer an unfettered right to object. The commenter noted that excepting fraud, impropriety, or something similar, an insurer should not be allowed to object "out-of-hand" to an inspection.
Agency Response: The department does not believe that the rule is in direct conflict with the statutory language. The department believes that the rule provides protections for insureds who select an inspector from an insurer's list by providing that the insurer does not have the right to challenge that certification. By the same token, insurers should also be able to verify the accuracy of an inspection that is performed by an inspector who is not on the insurers' list. In response to the commenter's concerns, the department has added a new paragraph (4) to subsection (d) of the rule and renumbered the remaining paragraphs to provide that if the consumer has an inspection and certification performed by an inspector who is not on a list provided by the insurer, the insurer may not reject or challenge the certification unless the insurer re-inspects the property and specifies in writing the areas of deficiency to the consumer. The new paragraph further provides that an insurer that re-inspects the property shall maintain all documentation, including documentation that supports the areas of deficiency identified by the inspection and specified in writing to the consumer. If the department learns of abuses in this regard, appropriate action will be considered, including further amendments to the rule.
Comment: One commenter noted that there should be clarification in the rule regarding the appliance-related claims and non-renewal requirements. The commenter stated that the legislature intended to separate appliance-related claims from other non-weather-related claims for the purposes of Insurance Code, Article 21.49-2B and will work with the department to address this situation, including work on appropriate notice language.
Agency Response: The department agrees that to the extent the legislation provides a prohibition against using less than three remediated appliance-related claims in underwriting, it appears that the legislation contemplates a distinction between appliance-related and other non-weather-related claims. Thus, the department has changed subsection (d)(2) of §21.1007 to add language noting that appliance-related losses are a special class of non-weather related losses and that the notice in this regard must be specific to the insured's appliance-related loss history.
Comment: A commenter pointed out that subsection (d)(1) of §21.1007 should for clarity refer to subsections 3(c) and (d) of Article 5.35-4 of the Insurance Code when referring to consumer requirements for compliance.
Agency Response: The department agrees and has changed subsection (d)(1) accordingly.
NAMES OF THOSE COMMENTING FOR AND AGAINST THE SECTION
For with changes: Travelers Property Casualty; Texas Association of Realtors; Nationwide Insurance and Financial Services; Office of Public Insurance Counsel; American Insurance Association; and United Services Automobile Association.
The amended section is adopted pursuant to the Insurance Code Articles 5.35-4, 21.21-11 and §36.001 and §1958.154 of the Occupations Code. The Insurance Code Article 5.35-4 provides that the Commissioner of Insurance shall adopt rules to accomplish the purposes of the article, including rules with regard to the definition of water damage claim. Article 21.21-11 §4 provides that the Commissioner shall adopt rules as necessary to implement this article. Section 1958.154 (d) of the Occupations Code provides that the Commissioner of Insurance shall adopt rules describing the information that must be provided in the certificate of mold remediation. Further, the certificate must be designed to comply with the requirements imposed under Article 21.21-11 of the Insurance Code. Section 36.001 of the Insurance Code provides that the Commissioner of Insurance may adopt any rules necessary and appropriate to implement the powers and duties of the Texas Department of Insurance under the Insurance Code and other laws of this state.
§21.1007. Restrictions on the Use of Underwriting Guidelines Based On a Water Damage Claim(s), Previous Mold Damage or a Mold Damage Claim(s).
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to protect persons and property from being unfairly stigmatized in obtaining residential property insurance by previous mold damage or by the filing of mold damage claims, a water damage claim, or certain appliance-related claims, under a residential property insurance policy.
(b) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) Residential property insurance--Insurance against loss to residential real property at a fixed location or tangible personal property provided in a homeowners policy, including a tenant policy, a condominium owners policy, or a residential fire and allied lines policy.
(2) Underwriting guideline--A rule, standard, guideline, or practice; whether written, oral, or electronic; that is used by an insurer or an agent of an insurer to decide whether to accept or reject an application for a residential property insurance policy or to determine how to classify the risks that are accepted for the purpose of determining a rate.
(3) Consumer--The person making the application to insure a property and includes both existing insureds and applicants for insurance.
(4) Insurer--An insurance company, reciprocal or interinsurance exchange, mutual, capital stock company, county mutual insurance company, farm mutual insurance company, association, Lloyd's plan company, or other entity writing residential property insurance in this state. The term includes an affiliate as described by Section 2, Article 21.49-1 or Section 823.003 of the Insurance Code if that affiliate is authorized to write and is writing residential property insurance in this state. The term does not include the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, the FAIR Plan, or an eligible surplus lines insurer regulated under Chapter 981.
(5) Appliance-related claim--A request by an insured for indemnification from an insurer for a loss arising from the discharge or leakage of water or steam from an appliance that is the direct result of the failure of the appliance. An appliance includes air conditioning units, heating units, refrigerators, dishwashers, icemakers, clothes washers, water heaters, and disposals. An appliance-related claim shall not include the failure of a plumbing system or an external attachment to the appliance used to transport water to or from the plumbing system.
(6) Water damage claim--A request by an insured for indemnification from an insurer for a loss arising from the discharge or leakage of water or steam that is the direct result of the failure of a plumbing system or other system that contains water or steam.
(c) Restrictions on the use of a water damage claim in underwriting. An insurer shall not use an underwriting guideline based solely upon a single prior water damage claim either filed by the applicant or on the covered property. Nothing contained herein shall preclude an insurer from the surcharge and renewal provisions of Article 21.49-2B, Section 7.
(d) Restrictions on underwriting and rating and the inspection and certification process of appliance-related claims.
(1) Except as provided in Article 5.35-4 subsection 3(e) of the Insurance Code, an insurer shall not use a prior appliance-related claim as a basis for determining a rate to be paid or for determining whether to issue, renew, or cancel a residential property insurance policy if the consumer complies with the requirements specified in Article 5.35-4 subsections 3(c) and 3(d) of the Insurance Code. It is the consumer's option whether to have the appliance-related claim inspected and certified, however, it is the consumer's responsibility to bear the cost of such inspection and certification. An appliance-related claim that is not inspected and certified shall be subject to the provisions contained in subsection (c) of this section.
(2) Nothing contained in subsection (d) of this section shall exempt an insurer from the notice provisions contained in Article 21.49-2B §7(d). However, appliance-related losses are a special class of non-weather related losses and the notice must be specific to the insured's appliance-related loss history.
(3) The following individuals who hold one or more of the following licenses are inspectors that may have the knowledge and experience in the remediation of water damage to inspect and certify the proper remediation of an appliance-related claim:
(A) inspectors licensed or certified through the Voluntary Inspection Program pursuant to Article 5.33B of the Insurance Code;
(B) persons licensed to perform real estate property inspections under the Real Estate Licensing Act;
(C) persons licensed as assessors or remediators by the Texas Board of Health pursuant to Chapter 1958 of the Occupations Code;
(D) licensed Texas Professional Engineers.
(4) If the consumer has an inspection and certification performed by an inspector under paragraph (3) of this subsection who is not on a list provided by the insurer, the insurer may not reject or challenge the certification unless the insurer re-inspects the property and specifies in writing the areas of deficiency to the consumer. An insurer that re-inspects the property shall maintain all documentation, including documentation that supports the areas of deficiency identified by the inspection and specified in writing to the consumer.
(5) Inspectors shall also include persons who are authorized by insurers to perform appliance-related water damage remediation inspections. An insurer who provides a list of inspectors authorized by the insurer must give verbal notice to any claimant at the time of the claimant's phone call reporting the claim and written notice to the claimant within 15 days of receiving notice of the claim that the claimant has the right to select the inspector including the right to choose an inspector who is not on the insurer's list who will perform the inspection of the appliance-related water damage remediation. If the consumer has the inspection and certification performed by an inspector from the list of inspectors authorized by the insurer then the insurer does not have the right to reject or challenge the certification.
(6) If the inspector determines by a physical inspection of the residential property that the appliance-related water damage has been properly remediated, the inspector shall issue within 10 days of the completion of the inspection a Certificate of Appliance-Related Water Damage Remediation (WDR-1).
(7) The Certificate of Appliance-Related Water Damage Remediation (WDR-1) is a form that is prescribed by the Department for use by inspectors who will provide certifications. This form may be obtained from the Texas Department of Insurance website http://www.tdi.state.tx.us or by requesting such form from the Automobile/Homeowners Section, MC 104-PC, Texas Department of Insurance, P. O. Box 149104, Austin, Texas, 78714-9104.
(8) Information regarding inspectors that may have the knowledge and experience in the remediation of water damage to inspect and certify the proper remediation of an appliance-related claim may be obtained from the Texas Department of Insurance website or by requesting such information from the Automobile/Homeowners Section.
(e) Restrictions on the use of previous mold damage or a claim for mold damage in underwriting residential property insurance.
(1) An insurer shall not use an underwriting guideline regarding a residential property insurance policy based upon previous mold damage or a prior mold damage claim filed either by the applicant or on the covered property if:
(A) the applicant for insurance has property that is eligible for residential property insurance coverage;
(B) the property has had mold damage;
(C) mold remediation has been performed on the property; and
(D) the property was:
(i) remediated in accordance with the requirements specified in Chapter 1958, Subchapter D of the Occupations Code and any applicable rules promulgated by the Texas Board of Health pursuant to Chapter 1958 of the Occupations Code; and a Certificate of Mold Damage Remediation (MDR-1) is issued to the property owner under Section 1958.154 of the Occupations Code, which certifies that the underlying cause or causes of the mold at the property have been remediated; or
(ii) inspected by an independent mold assessor or adjuster, who is licensed to perform mold assessment in accordance with rules promulgated by the Texas Board of Health under Chapter 1958 of the Occupations Code, and the independent mold assessor or adjuster provides to the property owner written certification on a Certificate of Mold Damage Remediation (MDR-1) that based on the mold assessment inspection, the property does not contain evidence of mold damage.
(2) The Certificate of Mold Damage Remediation (MDR-1) is a form that is prescribed by the Department for use by mold remediators, assessors, and adjusters who will provide certifications. This form may be obtained from the Texas Department of Insurance website http://www.tdi.state.tx.us or by requesting such form from the Automobile/Homeowners Section or from the Texas Department of Health.
(3) Nothing contained herein shall preclude an insurer from the surcharge and renewal provisions of Article 21.49-2B, Section 7.
(f) Filing requirements for underwriting guidelines relating to water damage claims, previous mold damage, or mold damage claims.
(1) All underwriting guidelines relating to water damage claims, previous mold damage, or mold damage claims shall be filed with the Department and shall comply with the requirements contained in this section and with any rules relating to underwriting guidelines that may be adopted by the Commissioner.
(2) Underwriting guidelines relating to water damage claims, previous mold damage, or mold damage claims shall be submitted to the Texas Department of Insurance, Property and Casualty Intake Unit, Mail Code 104-3B, P. O. Box 149104, Austin, Texas, 78714-9104 or to the Texas Department of Insurance, Property and Casualty Intake Unit, 333 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
(g) Subsection (c) of this section applies only to a residential property insurance policy that is delivered or issued for delivery based on an application that is submitted on or after the effective date of this section.