MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-Second Session
June 1, 2003
The Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order at 12:45 p.m., on Sunday, June 1, 2003. Chairman David Goldwater presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Goldwater, Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. David Brown
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Ron Knecht
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst
Wil Keane, Committee Counsel
Patricia Blackburn, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Joseph Guild, Legislative Advocate, State Farm Insurance Companies
Keith Lee, Legislative Advocate, State Board of Medical Examiners
Alfredo Alonso, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Resort Association
Matthew Sharp, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
James Werbeckes, Government Affairs Representative, Farmers Insurance Group
We will bring the meeting of Commerce and Labor to order. It is 12:45 p.m. We will start as a subcommittee and I will note for the record when a quorum is present. We will open the hearing on S.B. 250.
Senate Bill 250 (2nd Reprint): Revises various provisions relating to regulated businesses and professions. (BDR 57-835)
Joseph Guild, Legislative Advocate, State Farm Insurance Companies:
[Introduced himself] If you look at the title of the bill and you read the summary, you will wonder why I am here. You need to turn to page 79. There is a provision in Section 156 that relates to insurance companies and their dealings and procedures with the Insurance Commissioner. What we have is a timing of rate filing issue. The Insurance Commissioner, starting on line 5 of the Section, can determine that the market is not competitive. Then, pursuant to other sections of the NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes), an insurance company can increase or decrease within a 7 percent band once during every 12-month period without going to the Insurance Commissioner and filing a rate request. That does not mean the Insurance Commissioner doesn't have scrutiny of what the insurance company is doing. The Insurance Commissioner will still review the increase or decrease, but in this very small situation of non-competitive markets, in order for insurance companies to respond to the market, this proposal would allow them to make the filing, use it, and then have review by the Insurance Commissioner. That, quite simply, is what it does.
Page 80 of the bill explains what the Insurance Commissioner can do, beginning on line 16. She can determine that the rate is no longer meeting the requirements of the chapter, so there is recourse for the Commissioner to have review. There is recourse for the Commissioner to have authority to change things, if she deems it necessary. That, in a nutshell, is what State Farm Insurance and the other insurance companies are concerned about with this bill.
Chairman Goldwater:
Was this same language in S.B. 4 [of the 71st Session]?
Joe Guild:
I don't remember the number, but it was a bill from last session.
Chairman Goldwater:
It did not pass in the Assembly?
Joe Guild:
Exactly.
Chairman Goldwater:
Was it voted down?
Joe Guild:
I don't believe it ever had a vote. I think it had a hearing.
Chairman Goldwater:
I know it had a hearing. I vaguely remember it.
Joe Guild:
I, frankly, can't remember whether it was voted on or not. Maybe some others might remember that.
Chairman Goldwater:
There was no action taken? I think I voiced the major objection to this.
Joe Guild:
That could be. Again, my memory is not sharp on this. I do remember some controversy related to this. I think it is a reasonable solution to a competition problem. Again, I don't look at this so much as the insurance industry being able to do something nefarious as much as it is timing correctly in response to market forces. I believe there are plenty of safeguards in our statutes. If the Insurance Commissioner thinks something wrong is happening, this bill certainly allows for her review. The rest of the insurance code allows for her intervention in these situations.
Chairman Goldwater:
So, the affect of it is, she deems the market not competitive. For example, let's take what happened in medical malpractice. All other competitors can only go up or down by 7 percent?
Joe Guild:
Any market player in a market where the Insurance Commissioner has declared to be non-competitive, can either go up or down within 7 percent on either side of that base rate, increase or decrease the rate once within a twelve month period without prior approval by the Commissioner. I must emphasize that doesn't mean the Commissioner is out of the picture at all. It just means that in response to that market situation, the insurer would file with the Commissioner and put into effect the rate and . . .
Chairman Goldwater:
Let me ask you this. How is the determination made of a market that is not competitive? Is that an empirical determination?
Joe Guild:
Yes. There are criteria.
Chairman Goldwater:
Is it rebuttable?
Joe Guild:
It is rebuttable. There would be a situation where, if the Commissioner said there is a competitive market, then insurance companies could come in and dispute that, but the ultimate decision is in the hands of the Commissioner.
Chairman Goldwater:
Does she make these determinations often?
Joe Guild:
We have never had that situation, Mr. Chairman, because we haven't had this kind of rating scheme – I take that back – this is the way Nevada used to do this prior to 1985 or 1983. A form of this file and use system was in place. I have no idea what it was like because I wasn't even a lawyer then. I hope that answers your question. I don’t have a lot of knowledge about this situation and how it would work, because have never seen it.
Chairman Goldwater:
So, this is not a determination she makes often? This is just something she might do, and we are not prescribing how she determines that?
Joe Guild:
There are other sections of the statute, which talk about markets being competitive and noncompetitive. There are certain criteria; I just can't remember them.
Chairman Goldwater:
Okay. Is there anyone who is in dispute with that particular section? Is there anyone from the Insurance Commissioner's office?
Keith Lee, Legislative Advocate, State Board of Medical Examiners:
[Introduced himself] With respect to S.B. 250, we have spent a great deal of time on the other side working with the sponsors and with the State Medical Society and Clark County Medical Society ironing out some of the differences we had, and we were successful to a large extent. There was one issue, however, on which we agreed to disagree and to bring that issue both to you and to the Floor of the Senate, which we did.
If indeed this Committee decides to process S.B. 250, we would respectfully request you consider the amendment that I have offered (Exhibit C). It is designated as Amendment 971. This amendment was presented by the Minority Leader in the Senate on the Floor yesterday and failed to gain a majority vote. We think this is a matter of some public policy this Committee and this body should be aware of. Presently, the burden of proof to revoke a physician's license is "a preponderance of the evidence." The bill as written now increases that burden of proof to a "clear and convincing evidence." As a matter of public policy, the Board believes that is not good and it should remain at the present "preponderance of the evidence."
I have written in something else that I believe is important, which I will call to your attention by way of some very brief background. There are 9 members on the Board of Medical Examiners. Pursuant to statute and procedure of the Committee, 3 members of the Board are designated as the investigative committee. Whenever a complaint is filed against a physician, for any alleged misconduct or malpractice, the investigative committee reviews that. If the investigative committee recommends charges to be brought, then they file the formal complaint. In order to keep due process in place, the 3 members who do the initial investigation do not serve on the adjudicative committee or the balance of the Board. In other words, there are only 6 members of the 9-member Board who adjudicate a complaint. This section makes it a super majority, 5 of those 6 who sit, to reach a decision rather than the present majority, which is 4. We think that is a matter of public policy. It increases both the burden of proof and the number who must vote to discipline. We offer this amendment, and let me just indicate for the record that the "clear and convincing" standard that is being proposed in S.B. 250 goes only to the revocation of a physician's license. It does not go to any other disciplinary proceedings, short of revocation. We think that in the matter of revocation it should remain the same as it is for others.
[There were no questions. The chairman invited other testimony.]
Alfredo Alonso, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Resort Association:
[Introduced himself] We have an amendment (Exhibit D) that we have discussed with the sponsor of the bill. He and his Committee have no problem with the amendment and we would like to bring it forward for your consideration as well. This is an attempt to clarify a provision dealing with out-of-state litigants. The security fee that is sometimes charged hasn't been changed since the 1970s. We are simply trying to raise that to regain some cost that we incur on many of these litigations. We have had brief discussions with trial lawyers and they are in agreement as well.
Chairman Goldwater:
What about the paragraph that takes away the discretion, the addition of "shall be ordered"?
Alfredo Alonso:
We are trying to clarify the existing language that didn't allow for estimated costs to be provided. We want to make sure that those costs are included. It is still, essentially, up to the court.
Chairman Goldwater:
Wil, can you tell me what the effect of that is?
Wil Keane, Committee Legal Counsel:
My understanding is that these changes to Chapter 18 of NRS increase by $200 the amount of money that needs to be deposited by a plaintiff, if the plaintiff resides out-of-state or is a foreign corporation. Further, that amount could be increased if the defendant made a showing that increased security would be necessary.
Assemblyman Brown:
What kind of showing is anticipated? Is this spelled out here at all?
Alfredo Alonso:
Again, the showing would have to be enough to get the court to decide that they were, in fact, in agreement. Obviously, if they didn't . . . [inaudible]
Wil Keane:
In further response to Mr. Brown, the language to be added to NRS 18.130(2) would require the court to order the increased security if the defendant was able to make a proof that the security that was already posted was insufficient. The way that proof could be made would be by showing an estimate of the cost that would be incurred.
Matthew Sharp, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association:
In reviewing the language, the court would still have to determine there was insufficient security. The added phrase would be one example where the defendant may prove that the security is insufficient; the court may reject the proof. It still seems to me that the court would have wide discretion in determining if the security is insufficient.
Assemblyman Brown:
Right now, there is discretion with the court. There is a means for requesting additional security. Is that correct?
Matthew Sharp:
That is correct.
Assemblyman Brown:
I have a little concern that this might be subject to abuse later on in litigation. If you have some out-of-state clients and somebody just wants to antagonize and file claims every time, the plaintiff would have to put up more security for potential litigation costs, which could get pretty high. So that gives me some concerns since we are not always in a position to post that kind of money.
Matthew Sharp:
I think your concerns are well founded. Although the way the language will read under the law, the court will still have to make that determination. I think the court typically can see if it is a frivolous motion that is being used to harass the plaintiff. I think the court would simply reject the proof that the security is insufficient.
Assemblyman Brown:
Are you anticipating that a motion or a petition would [be filed] immediately following a complaint?
Matthew Sharp:
In my ten years plus of practice, I have never had a defendant contend that the security was insufficient. I wouldn't expect there to be a run of litigation now claiming the security is insufficient.
Assemblyman Brown:
That is why I wonder why we want to add this. Maybe we don't need it.
Alfredo Alonso:
Again, the purpose of the increase and the additional language is to clarify the statute to add to the initial security because it hasn't been changed in so many years, and we receive so many litigants from out-of-state. We are trying to get to a situation where we can [recoup] some of the costs incurred in such litigation. I don't see this as any change in current law, I think it simply clarifies to some extent and obviously adds $200 to the security, which is significantly smaller than what is paid by the attorneys themselves.
Chairman Goldwater:
Not to be a stickler, Alfredo, but why didn't you put this in on the Senate side?
Alfredo Alonso:
The Chairman of the Committee, at that point, had asked us to take a look at this as it moved along. We were made aware of this issue just recently, so there was really no other reason other than the fact it was late in the session.
Assemblyman Brown:
I don't know if you mentioned whom you are representing on this bill?
Alfredo Alonso:
NRA [Nevada Resort Association].
Matthew Sharp:
This security deposit statute applies to all litigation filed by a nonresident client.
Chairman Goldwater:
[Announced a quorum was present.] Hypothetically, Matt, [regarding] the occurrence that happened, I think it was the tobacco settlement, where a jury made a determination . . .
Matthew Sharp:
No, the security deposit that is referenced in this amendment is for when a nonresident plaintiff files suit, the defendant may require a cost bond for which the defendant can collect if they prevail. The example you were using would be a post-proceeding bond upon appeal.
Chairman Goldwater:
Okay.
Assemblyman Brown:
Now I see the picture and I can see, in those instances, it is probably justifiable, but I have some concerns. I think it can be done right now under the existing statute. I just don't want this to encourage post-filing routine of "you are an out-of-stater so . . .”
For disclosure purposes, I am an attorney representing quite a few out-of-state clients, most of whom are very solvent and have no problem. I don't want to be challenged on this every time we turn around because the client is out-of-state. I think there is room under the statute as is.
When was the last time the fee was increased?
Matthew Sharp:
I think it was 1972 or 1976. It has been quite a while.
Alfredo Alonso:
I think the scenario you bring up is obviously a valid one, but that same scenario could occur under existing law. Although I understand where you are coming from, someone could still try to do this to a plaintiff. I don't think that would change at all.
Matthew Sharp:
The principal reason why the Nevada Resort Association would want something like that would be for dealing with frivolous lawsuits because they are expensive to defend. Absent that, I would see very rarely where NRS 18.130 would be used to increase this supersedeas bond.
I would like to echo Mr. Lee's comment relative to Section 52, Nevada Trial Lawyers support keeping the standard for revocation as "preponderance" and not "clear and convincing." I can answer any specific questions on what the "clear and convincing" standard means.
Chairman Goldwater:
Okay. Mr. Sharp, can you help me comment on a couple of other places, since we don't have the proponent? Tell me about Section 151, page 76; Section 152, paragraph 2. We are finding that language throughout some of the Boards. It is also in [Section] 154 and also a little bit in Section 42. Are we liberally going to construe Rule 11 and let it apply more often?
Matthew Sharp:
The concern has been that the courts are not enforcing the provisions of Rule 11. For the Committee, Rule 11 means that lawyers, with respect to any motion or any complaint, who sign the pleading, are verifying under oath that they have a good faith basis for the plea. If they don't, sanctions are imposed. The criticism has been that the courts are not enforcing the fee portion enough. This provision is certainly instructing the court to liberally construe those provisions and require fees.
Chairman Goldwater:
Does the NTLA (Nevada Trial Lawyers Association) have a position on this?
Matthew Sharp:
We don't have a position. Certainly, we are in support if it helps curb frivolous litigation tactics, both with the plaintiff and defendant.
[The Chairman invited further testimony on S.B. 250.]
James Werbeckes, Government Affairs Representative, Farmers Insurance Group:
[Introduced himself] I was able to contact the Commissioner of Insurance by telephone a few minutes ago. She is in total support of this bill as currently drafted on second reprint. Farmers [Insurance] is also in support of it.
Chairman Goldwater:
Did you reference a particular section that was of concern?
James Werbeckes:
Yes, I did, and she is in support of it.
Chairman Goldwater:
Thank you very much for your work, Mr. Werbeckes.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I have handed out some language that didn't get considered. It had been requested but came in late from a constituent (Exhibit E). The chiropractors had a concern about the need to add this language and this seemed to be the only bill that was germane to that area, regarding the "Solicitation by a licensee or his designated agent of any person who, at the time of the solicitation, is vulnerable to undue influence, including, without limitation, any person known . . ." The Board would like us to consider the insertion of this language. Maybe staff can help answer questions on that.
Chairman Goldwater:
Vance? [There was a conference off the record.] Do all members have a copy of Exhibit E?
[There was no further testimony on S.B. 250.] We will close the hearing on S.B. 250. My understanding, Vance, [is] we have the Minority Leader's amendment, we have the Nevada Resort Association's amendment, and we have Ms. Giunchigliani’s amendment. I suppose we need to take action as it is the afternoon before the final day, the 119th day. Is there a desire for the Committee to take action?
Assemblywoman Leslie:
Could you review your objections to the insurance provisions last session?
Chairman Goldwater:
Last session, it was my concern that insurers would be able to arbitrarily raise or decrease their rates without approval of the Commissioner. The determination of whether or not there was a competitive market is not fixed in statute yet. She could just say it was clearly not competitive for medical malpractice line or another health line and, without Insurance Commission approval, an insurer could just simply raise their rate. I think the testimony indicated now that the Insurance Commissioner would still have oversight, and as I read it, that determination can be revoked at any time if they abuse that. So I think it allows a little bit of flexibility.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I'll try to explain [what my amendment does]. The Chiropractor's Board had no other vehicle to try to correct their unprofessional conduct language. If you look at the top of the first page (Exhibit E), they are asking to remove the language regarding obtaining a fee because this implies that the assurance would be okay to tell someone that they could be permanently cured, as long as they don't ask for a fee. So they wanted to delete the term "obtain a fee."
The next section is regarding informational documents to former or current patients. They want to remove that because it implies a direct mailing of documents as unprofessional conduct. I think they just want some cleanup language.
They are asking to add to their solicitation [language] and this item is described as attempting to acquire a patient from information acquired from police or third party reports. It states that the real purpose of this statute is to prevent DCs from obtaining a listing of injured persons, and then trying to call them and solicit them. The Board wanted to be sure that behavior would be deemed unprofessional conduct.
In addition to that, towards the bottom of page 2, they wanted to add "or any governmental accrediting agency." Currently, they are being sued and there is a problem with that particular agency that would make it possible for the Board to do its function to license – why, I don't know.
They are suggesting adding part 4, which is technical language that is noted on the top of page 3, "with the exception of a licensee who has reached the age of 70 years."
Also, they wanted to delete "two hours of the continuing education must be obtained in a topic specified by the board." This was not justified any longer; the Board does not think it is necessary.
Chairman Goldwater:
Did it just die in the Commerce and Labor Committee?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Correct. Originally they were going to put in another bill, but it wasn't drafted in time.
Chairman Goldwater:
Lastly, Mr. Lee, on S.B. 250, just a question. This imposes a tremendous extra duty on the Board of Medical Examiners. Are they okay with that?
Keith Lee:
Those were some of the issues that were worked out on the other side and we are comfortable with it and we are prepared to meet those additional burdens. Under A.B. 1 of the 18th Special Session, we are hiring additional [staff] anyway. With those additional people, we will be able to deal with this.
Chairman Goldwater:
Okay. Is there a desire for this Committee to move this bill with the amendments?
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 250.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Brown:
I think I am still going to object to the Nevada Resort Association amendment. It is mandated, "the court shall order." Then you may prove it up by showing that your estimated costs are going to exceed what the bond is. I don't know any proceeding where costs have not exceeded that, and I guess what we are saying is we need to bond the costs of litigation. If so, then we need to say that. I have some discomfort with that amendment.
Chairman Goldwater:
Is this something that is very important to the Nevada Resort Association, Mr. Alonso? We want to get this bill done and get the potential speed bumps out of the bill.
Alfredo Alonso:
We really believe in it, and again, I believe Mr. Sharp can discuss any nuances with respect to the plaintiff's part. We don't believe it does anything more than existing law. We are simply raising the security amount, and, as far as the other section, again, it still is the court's decision as to whether this is going to be raised in the first place, so you are not changing anything. It is still the defendant's responsibility to prove it.
Chairman Goldwater:
If we are not changing anything, then why are we changing it? What if we raise the security amount and did away with that language below? Would that be what you are objecting to, Mr. Brown?
Assemblyman Brown:
That would probably be more acceptable. Or, changing the "shall" back to the "may."
Chairman Goldwater:
Can you persuade the maker of the motion?
Alfredo Alonso:
I think changing back to "may" is fine.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I would agree to change it to "may."
Chairman Goldwater:
The maker of the motion and the second are happy. They have amended their motion to include the suggestion by Mr. Brown. Wil, are you content with that? The Amend and Do Pass motion has been made with the amendments as outlined. Is there further discussion?
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Buckley, Mrs. Gibbons, Mr. Griffin, and Speaker Perkins were absent.)
Next, we have a work session document (Exhibit F) prepared on S.B. 132.
Senate Bill 132 (2nd Reprint): Requires licensure of persons engaged in certain activities relating to control of mold. (BDR 53-235)
Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst:
S.B. 132 requires the State Contractor's Board to license and regulate persons engaged in the remediation of mold. The bill also requires the Board of Registered Environmental Health Specialists to certify and regulate persons who engage in the inspection and testing of mold.
There are two proposed amendments to S.B. 132. First, Helen Foley, representing Clark County Health District, proposed an amendment instructing the Board to consult with and utilize local health authorities in the adoption of regulations and for other services.
Secondly, Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani expressed concerns regarding Section 4 of the bill. Section 4 provides that certain provisions of the bill do not apply to developers, contractors, or subcontractors who constructed a residence. To address this concern the following amendment was proposed. The exemption in Section 4 for a developer, contractor, or subcontractor who constructed a residence only applies if:
Chairman Goldwater:
Is there anyone who would like to comment on these suggested amendments?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I want to thank staff, Diane and Wil and Vance, for helping us. I know they went back to Senator Coffin and we did find that the language's intent was not actually what had been drafted. So this way it doesn't open a loophole, but if you are in the middle of constructing something, you can fix it then, you should be exempt. Once it has been completed, then the rest of the bill kicks in.
Assemblyman Beers:
The day before sine die strikes me as an odd time for the driest state in the nation to pioneer the regulation of mold remediation. I would feel better if we had some other state's experience to fall back on. I don't have the technical expertise and with the time being short, this strikes me as a move fraught with potential error.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I can appreciate that, but it did have a good hearing [in the Senate]. It isn’t something that came over to us at the last minute.
Being Senator Coffin's neighbor, I watched his house literally gutted and torn down. It doesn't have anything to do with being in the driest state. A lot of it is based on inappropriate mounting of air conditioners and heaters that create damage within the home itself, which then allows the build-up of water that can create the mold. Even though Vegas is dry, or the state of Nevada is, it is the elements and the specific location that allows this to grow. I think it is timely that we do something, especially since the insurance companies won't cover any longer for mold. This is more of a prevention. I saw it as a piece of legislation so we are not getting into finger-pointing at the construction industry, but we had better make sure that homes are constructed properly or that repairs are done so that people don't get taken advantage of. I think that was the intent.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Maybe staff can help me. In looking at the language in the work session document, on page 1, line 11, it says provisions of Sections 27 to 41, inclusive, and it says the Board shall utilize a local health authority providing services. Do we have a local health authority in every county?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
No.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
Is this limited to big counties?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
It is? Then, finally, I am wondering if the language at the bottom that says, ”the board shall reimburse a local health authority for services rendered," is limited to the big counties. Then those would be the only ones that they would be going to, so it should be okay. All right. That's fine.
Wil Keane:
When Ms. Foley turned in her amendment the other day, we verified a couple of points. I want to make sure that I understand whether or not those points were supposed to be included with her amendment.
On the line that Mr. Hettrick was referring to, the phrase "utilize a local health authority," Ms. Foley clarified she meant the Board ”may” use the local health authority. It should be permissive and there should be agreement on both sides. Also, she clarified that it was only counties of 100,000 or more.
Then, on Section 30 at the bottom of that same page, she wanted the exemption to be clarified. Just by way of explanation, Section 30 was the provision that a person who engages in testing must hold a certificate issued by the Board. She wanted to be sure the same person shouldn't be doing the inspecting and the remediating. Does the Committee want to include those?
Chairman Goldwater:
I tend to agree with Mr. Beers, but I can tell you something that he did not mention. I feel mold will be a huge issue across the country without a doubt. We don't know how to deal with it. Whether or not we are doing the right thing, or whether we have it at the right Board, I am fairly comfortable with the fact that the implementation of this is staggered. I know we will probably make some big mistakes as this policy is implemented. I'd rather get it started down the road and make the mistakes so that by the time it starts to be a huge national issue, we have ironed out as many wrinkles as possible for the Nevada consumers. I think we have to get started addressing it. I am in favor of passing this with the amended provisions.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 132 AS OUTLINED IN THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS VOTING NO. (Ms. Buckley and Speaker Perkins were absent.)
Chairman Goldwater:
I just received an e-mail on S.B. 250, that the file and use provisions, which are what we discussed, what Mr. Werbeckes and Mr. Guild were in favor of, was adamantly opposed by me in the last session and by Ms. Buckley as well. I hate to see the good things in this bill get lost because of those things. Mr. Guild, would you like to discuss this? Jim [Werbeckes]? Just because of the lateness of the session. There are a lot of good things in this bill and a lot of people worked very hard on it. What can we do to take care of it, or would you be horrified if we took that out?
Joe Guild:
I think the Committee made the right decision a while ago. I do appreciate that there are a lot of things in this bill that quite a few people spent a lot of time on. But this issue, I would remind the Committee, has been around for at least three sessions. The Legislature has looked at enough. We have had many discussions with the Commissioner of Insurance through the years. I believe this is a fair and balanced approach to the timing of market forces and dealing with that. I can't promise the Committee that this could result in lower rates for consumers. When you add more responsive marketers, and the Commissioner of Insurance is not dealing with every detail of a rate case that is brought to her, then some good things can happen for consumers. The Commissioner could look at the bad operators; she can [save] time not reviewing a rate request which is 7 percent more or 7 percent less, and devote a fairly limited staff to –
Chairman Goldwater:
I appreciate all that. We have heard that issue for quite some time. You are either going to have a Floor amendment to take it out, which would delay the drafting process, or we can do it here to take it out, which would expedite the reprint, the delays, and everything else. So, logistically speaking, it is either going to come out in the Floor amendment or it is going to come out here. I understand what you are saying. What made me uncomfortable more than in the past, was the determination by the Commissioner that the market was competitive. I think the Commissioner never made that determination; this bill would be completely invalid anyway. Can you have her work on it and you work on it so that it could be included in her next omnibus bill?
Joe Guild:
I appreciate everything you just said about due process and everything else. I would not be representing my client or the merits of this issue, if I said go ahead and do what you have suggested in this Committee. I am not trying to take the prerogative of this Committee away. I respect the process and I will respect whatever this Committee does.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
As the maker of the motion, I do appreciate Joe and Jim working with us on this.
Chairman Goldwater:
We can make a motion to rescind your prior motion. All in favor?
THE MOTION CARRIED TO RESCIND THE PRIOR MOTION.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS AND THE FOURTH BEING TO DELETE THE FILE AND USE ISSUE.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Buckley and Speaker Perkins were absent.)
[There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:44 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patricia Blackburn
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David Goldwater, Chairman
DATE: