House Insurance & Commerce Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1572
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1572”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB263
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB263”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1635
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1635”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB277
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB277”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1556
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “1529, we're going to pass over. House Bill 1556, we're going to pass over. So that would leave House Bill 1…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1582
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “and we're going to pass over House Bill 1582 and 1583. I'm now going to recognize Representative Ritchie…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB377
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB377”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
1529, we're going to pass over. House Bill 1556, we're going to pass over. So that would leave House Bill 1572. Representative Kerr, are you here to present? Yes, sir, I am. Okay. If you would, take a seat at the end of the table and recognize anyone you've got with you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
0:30
committee. Good morning. I appreciate being catapulted to first on the agenda. House Bill 1572 is what we're here to introduce this morning. This is Mr. Booth Rand, and I'm going to let him introduce himself and his title to the committee.
Booth Rand
Unverified
0:50
Thank you, Representative Kerr. Mr. Chair, my name is Booth
Speaker 7
0:53
Rand. I'm managing attorney the Arkansas Insurance Department. House Bill 1572 is an Insurance Department bill. Insurance
Department regulates prepaid funeral contracts in Arkansas. We have about a billion dollars of contracts and prepaid funeral contracts issued in the state. Approximately about $250 million of those contracts are funded by cash. Funeral homes are required by law to deposit the cash in trust accounts, and within those accounts when they want to make investments on bonds and stocks. There are stock limitations or stock restrictions that require the funeral home to invest in pretty high-grade stocks and bonds so that there's not a risky investment.
This proposed bill does three things today. The first thing it does is currently the bond investment requirements require a funeral home to invest only in bonds that are rated double A. The problem has occurred in the economy with a lot of these bonds is that the investments drop from AA to A, which we feel like is even a pretty strong rating itself, but many of the funeral homes weren't able to qualify their investment because the bond ratings dropped from AA to A. What this bill
does is it reduces the bond rating requirement down to A so that the Department doesn't have to non-admit a lot of these bonds in terms of reviewing the solvency of the operation. We feel like an A-rating bond is sufficiently strong for funeral homes. Our finance director, Mr. Anderson, is okay with the reduction down to an A. The other purpose of this bill is in one of the code provisions that we're changing, one of the
attorneys or some bank attorneys have asked us whether a statute could be read to mean this, which is that one of the requirements is that all of the funds in the bonds and stocks have to meet the investment requirements. There is a clause in the code section we're proposing to change which leads to a question of whether the first $100,000 has to be subject to those investment limitations. This proposed bill removes that language and makes it clear
that all of the funds, every single dime and cent, have to meet the investment restrictions in the code, and that was deleted. So that is to improve our solvency regulation, and we did not want to leave the impression that funeral homes could invest in these bonds and stocks, but only the first $100,000. Many of these funeral homes have millions of dollars in these bonds and stocks. We certainly don't want to have them take the position that only the first $100,000 applies to that. And in reality, the insurance department, when they
do an examiner investigation applies our laws to all the money. We just want to remove any argument that only the first $100,000 applies. The last thing, I know I'm going on, is most of the changes throughout this proposed bill, you'll see strikeouts and insertions related to nonspecified prepaid contracts. Let me explain what's going on. In the Arkansas Insurance Code and prepaid funeral contracts, a prepaid funeral contract is a specific, legally defined contract. It is a provision of funeral merchandise or service at a locked-in price.
It has a specific price, and it has a specific itemization of funeral services and merchandise. When a funeral home issues a prepaid funeral contract with those characteristics, it's subject to the Arkansas Insurance Department rules and regulations. It's heavily regulated. We believe, and the industry has come to the Department and advised us, and we see this as well, that many funeral homes are escaping jurisdiction by writing contracts which do not specify the actual amount of the funeral contract. They do not specify or itemize funeral services or merchandise. So that when our auditors come around and look at the books
and records, we're unable due to legal impediments in our definition of prepaid funeral contracts of considering that contract regulated. And the funeral homes know that. So we don't think there's a significant amount of volume of these kinds of contracts out there. But on these contracts, funeral homes are collecting the same amounts of money, life insurance policies, and handling fines for nonspecified contracts. And we feel like it's in the public interest, in the interest of the legislature to make sure that we have adequate and compliant funeral homes selling these that we also regulate
prepaid funeral contract, I mean nonspecified contracts. The proposed rule tends to develop the standards for reviewing nonspecified contracts and rule regulation. So those are the three purposes of this rule. Sorry to go on, but I'd be glad to answer any questions if you have any. Okay. Are there any questions to the committee? Okay. Seeing
none, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill? If not, Representative Kerr, are
you closed for your bill? Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 11
5:53
I've learned that, you know, when the sale is made, you shut up. So I'm closed. What are the wishes
of the committee? Okay. Representative Barnett, you are recognized for a motion. Committee, we have a motion do pass on House Bill 1572. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Representative Kerr, you passed House Bill 1572. And Mr. Rand, we appreciate you being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Okay, at this time, I have spoken with Representative Barnett,
and we're going to pass over House Bill 1582 and 1583. I'm now going to recognize Representative Ritchie to present House Bill 1635. Representative Ritchie, if you would, introduce yourself to the committee and anyone that you have with you for
testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. I
Speaker 18
6:48
have with me Daniel Faulkner from the Arkansas Department of Labor. In case any of you all have any questions,
and give him an opportunity to speak a little bit about this bill. It could be, as it says in the title, HB 1635 is an act to amend the Amusement Ride and Amusement Attraction Safety Act. Under the current act, there are certain portable rides, such as inflatables and climbing walls, which are deemed safe enough to be only inspected every six months instead of every time they are set up. And the Department of Labor has deemed a couple more rides meet that criteria,
specifically mechanical bulls and mechanical gyros. And I was hoping to be able to demonstrate those here today. I wasn't able to get one in to the committee room. But anyway, so instead of just adding those two and then coming back when more rides come up that they want to add to that list, This act gives the director the leeway to determine which rides in the future should be included. It would eliminate the need for further amendments, save the owner-operator's money in inspection fees,
and save the agency time and money in travel expenses. So with that, I'll let Mr. Faulkner add anything he wants. Mr. Faulkner, recognize yourself for the committee, please. Thank
Speaker 20
8:14
you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Daniel Faulkner, staff attorney, Arkansas Department of Labor. As Representative Ritchie mentioned, this is a bill to give us a little more authority to take a look at what rides are safe and sufficiently safe enough to be inspected every six months instead of every time they're set up. Right now every ride has to be inspected every time and has to have the requisite insurance
by the amusement ride law. This would allow us the authority to go through the reg process and judge which rides are safe. through the newspaper, like the regular reg process, send out notice to all the interested parties, everybody would come to the table, and it would eventually come over to the legislature again for rule and reg review. Specifically, mechanical bulls and gyros are what we're looking at right now. Our safety folks feel like they're safe enough to be inspected twice a year. Mechanical bulls, while they are mechanical, it's not that mechanical. It's essentially just a
self-contained device. You sit on the ground with an inflatable ring around it. And gyros, if you don't know, it's actually a trampoline that you can strap into with those ropes and jump around. You've probably seen them at the mall. Those operate independent of county fairs many times. It's hard for us to coordinate inspections, and we really take a hit on mileage sometimes inspecting these. It would save us money. It would save the regulated folks money. In fact, I was told this morning by our head safety gentleman that there's a mechanical bull in the state that's the most inspected ride in the state of Arkansas, 25 inspections.
Statutorily, it's $100 per inspection. So that gentleman had to pay $2,500 last year. Under this act, if we could get through the reg process, he would pay $200, and we feel like it's reasonably safe. So thank you. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions to
the committee? Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Mr. Chairman, I have a
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
10:04
motion at the proper time. Okay, that's a proper
motion. Are there any other questions to the committee? Representative Barnett, you're recognized for a question. I recognize you, Representative Barnett. I think we have the same question.
Representative Vines, Mr. Barnett does not have a question, so
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
10:20
you are now recognized for a question. Thank you, and I appreciate the deferral from the gentleman from
Asylum Springs. I appreciate that courtesy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just out of curiosity, where was that mechanism located that you had to inspect that many times last year? Well,
it's all over the state, Representative. But you said one owner
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
10:43
and that's the problem. It wasn't at any establishment. No, actually permanent rides
Speaker 20
10:48
get inspected twice a year already by statute,
but these mechanical bulls, they'll operate in, you know, Jonesboro, El Dorado, and our guys, not to mention just the time and salaries it takes to cover these things during what we call green grass season when all the rides are out there between March and October. They're busy doing county fairs and the big rides. We'd just like the opportunity to inspect some a little bit less.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Vines. Representative Viviano, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
11:21
Tell us a little bit about the liability exposure.
What's the typical liability policy they have to cover? And will this have any impact by reducing these number of inspections to the state?
Speaker 35
11:33
I can't speak as to what a private insurance company would write on their policy. They're
Speaker 20
11:39
required by statute to get a million dollars per occurrence policy by statute through us. I just can't answer the question of whether less inspections might increase premiums. But inflatables and rock walls are already inspected every six months.
And that's the kind of thing that we could take care of in the reg process if there was some questions about that. We'd hear from the community on that saying, you know, our premiums are going up. In fact, some might want to be inspected more often.
But we can sure address that in the reg process. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Viviano. Representative
Barnett, do you have a question? I think so. Okay. You're recognized for a question? Apparently there are several members
that want to ask this question, and they don't want to do it. Representative Ritchie, I guess there's people that think maybe that it was maybe you that did the inspection last Wednesday night at the Electric Cowboy at the Women's Bikini Bull Rod Competition.
Is that correct? Yeah, I'm part of the monthly inspection team that goes to that, yeah. Okay, thank
you. Okay, seeing no further questions of the committee, I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this? Seeing none, Representative Ritchie, are you closed? I'm closed. Okay. Representative Love, you are recognized for a motion. Oh, Representative Collins, you are recognized for a motion. Thank you,
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
12:59
Mr. Chairman. I move do pass.
Committee, we have a proper motion to do pass on House Bill 1635. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, your bill passes, Representative Ritchie. Mr. Faulkner, thank you for being here. Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. At this time, Committee, I'm going to go to the next bill on our agenda is Senate Bill 263. Representative Vines, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 263. Okay, Mr. Vines, if you would hold up for a minute.
Representative Murdoch's pad is not working. You bet. Absolutely. Is it working? Okay, Representative Vines, you are recognized for Senate
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
13:56
Bill 263. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and committee. It's my privilege today to bring you Senate Bill 263 from our friends down in the Senate. This deals with a bill that's going to apply to the insurance on portable electronics, such as cell phones, iPads, and notebook computers.
What this does is it does a couple of things. The bill does, actually, if you have it pulled up on our trusty monitors. Section 1 streamlines the licensing process for the vendors. It requires the vendor to maintain a list and provide to the insurance department as needed or if requested. Section 2 clarifies what information is to be provided to consumers if the terms of the insurance coverage change. Pretty simple, straightforward bill. The insurance department has no objection.
I do have Derek Smith here with me if there is any questions.
I appreciate a favorable vote. Thank you. Representative Barnett, you are recognized. Is that
you last one? No, I'm kidding. How many of these devices are still around? I mean, I'm assuming a lot of these are at airports. Is this the same type of vending machine for insurance that I'm aware of?
Where do these machines usually define insurance policies? Mr. Smith, if you would
Speaker 48
15:21
recognize yourself for the committee. Sure.
Derek Smith
Unverified
15:25
My name is Derek Smith. I'm an attorney with the Mitchell-Williams Law Firm here in Little Rock, Arkansas, and I represent Asurion. Here, I think vendor here is meant to be locations like Best Buy, Walmart, AT&T stores, places that sell portable electronics, and they have people in there, so vending machines aren't part of this one.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Barnett. Are there any other questions to the committee? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill? Okay. Representative Wardlaw, you are recognized. Okay. That is a proper motion. Representative Vines, are you closed for your bill? Absolutely. Okay. Committee, we have a motion do pass. It's a proper motion. All those in favor of Senate Bill 263 say aye.
Those opposed? Representative Vines, you have passed Senate Bill 263. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Thank you. Mr. Smith, thank you for being with our committee. Okay, at this time we are going to continue. Now my pad is messed up, but I believe the next item on our agenda is Senate Bill 277. Representative Farrar, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 277.
If you would, recognize yourself for the committee and anyone testifying. I've got it.
Representative Joe Farrer
Unverified
16:58
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Joe Farrar, representing District 44. I'm here today to present Bill 277 from the Senate. And with me I have Dr. Steve Forbush, a physical therapist, along with me. So I'd like to just turn the floor over to him and let him explain the
Speaker 56
17:15
bill. My name is Steve Forbush. I represent the Physical Therapy Association of Arkansas, but also I'm representing the occupational therapist as a speech-language pathologist at this meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting us speak to you, and thank you, Representative Farrar, for us having the opportunity to speak. We really would like to suggest that the language and the title of this is probably not totally appropriate. It should probably read, the required insurance companies to allow comparable co-pay to physical therapists, et cetera. It's not a reimbursement. We're not trying to be equally paid to physicians. What's happening in insurance is there have been quite a significant increase in copay insurance on most insurers,
and a lot of that is not necessarily for primary care but for specialty care. It just so happens that physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language pathologists, all the rehab providers are listed as specialists. Therefore, the copays in the last three years have gone from an average of about $20 per copay to an average of about $50 per copay. We understand that insurance companies have very much wanted to cap their costs. It's important for them to keep costs and regulation under control. But these co-pays, if you go to a specialist as an orthopedic surgeon or some other specialist,
you might have an office visit of $200, $300, and they're paying about a $50 co-pay. For physical therapists, a typical visit might cost about $80, and they're paying a $50 co-pay. So what's happened is indirectly, whether they wanted to or not, the people addressing rehab needs aren't completing their rehab service because their costs are getting too high. And when they don't complete their rehab needs, we're having increased costs in imaging, surgery, hospitalizations, and the things that are really the highest costs on insurance industries.
The insurance industry's costs are very blended towards high costs in tests and imaging and hospitalization and surgery And rehab is not one of the highest costs, but it is indirectly limiting those people that are doing rehab. So we have proposed this language so that we can get these costs more reasonable, more in the range of the primary care physician, about $20, $20 to $30. And we think that that might allow people to continue their rehab through completion.
So I would urge the committee to have favorable consideration in this bill. and turn it back to you. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 37
19:44
you, Mr. Forbush. Is that correct? Okay. Are there any questions in the committee? Okay. Seeing none,
okay. Is there any questions? No. I'm going to go to the audience. Is there
anyone here that would like to speak for or against this bill? Okay. If not, I do have a question.
Representative Williams, you are recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
20:08
I'm sorry for being a little slow. MR. It's a limit on copay. It doesn't prevent a copay, correct? MR. No, the copay can still exist,
Speaker 55
20:18
except that we would be put in more in the primary care category instead of the specialist category. MR. Okay.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
20:24
And so I'm having difficulty with the language on lines 27 through 34, page 2. I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand what that says. I got it.
No, scratch it. I just understood it. We're ready. That's the 12th time. I figured it out. All right. Now
I understand. I apologize. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Williams. Okay. They're seeing no other.
Chair
Unverified
21:01
Okay. Representative Ward, you're recognized for a question. Thanks, Mr. Chair. When you stated earlier that the co-pay for those specialists went from $20 to $20 $50 co-pay, so that they have statutory authority to actually increase their co-pay that way?
Speaker 56
21:16
Yeah, any time insurance companies would set up a contract for any of the people that are purchasing insurance, they can set co-pays. So typically on your card, you would have each year as you renew your insurance, you would have a card that would say primary care, whatever the number is, might be $10, $20, And then it would say specialty care, it might say $40 to $50, whatever it might be. In some states now, that's gone as high as $70, $80. So that's one way the insurance is trying to make sure that more costs are realized by the person that's actually purchasing the care.
And we understand that. But they can change that. They could change primary care after this passes to $50. But we would at least be in the same realm as everyone else. So they can really set that any way they want to. It's an agreement between the person that is purchasing the insurance, the private entity that's buying the insurance from the insurance company or setting up the insurance
Speaker 66
22:13
for their employees, and the individual, the insurance company themselves. They sort of set that. So
Speaker 67
22:19
this piece of legislation would not limit them in any kind of way of actually setting that co-pay?
Speaker 56
22:27
No. The only thing it would limit, it would say that whatever you set for the primary care costs would also be that which would be set for the rehab costs. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Ward. Representative Perry, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a couple
Representative Ward
Unverified
22:43
of questions. If my clients look at their provider director now, will these classifications be listed under primary care or specialist? You know, and
Speaker 56
22:51
I don't have an answer to that. I think it goes any which way. Sometimes it's listed under rehab providers. I think on the card it will never say what the specialists are.
If we call the insurance company, we will always be listed as specialists. All three entities that I'm referring to today are occupational therapy, speech therapy, and physical therapy. But under the listing, it's usually listed under rehab providers. So it would be under rehab providers and would have the rehab providers listed. So it doesn't really designate to the purchaser that if you buy this product or you're agreeing to this product that you know that a specialist includes your physical therapist through your occupational therapist, through your speech-language pathologist. MR.
Representative Ward
Unverified
23:31
Okay. Follow-up question, Mr. Chair? MR. Absolutely. MR. If we're going to reduce the co-payment, would the fee also be reduced for people who have health savings accounts? If I come, would it be a standard lower fee? MR. Health savings accounts, they're under different regulation. Health
Speaker 56
23:49
savings accounts, basically, you would be paying for the visit. The visit would not change. The visit would stay the same. It has stayed the same. The difference would be just the copay amount that is required by the insurance to make sure that they're putting the cost on.
So under a health savings account, you're basically saying that your health savings account is paying for the visit. Are you
Representative Ward
Unverified
24:10
talking about catastrophic? Which is me. Which is me. So will my fee be reduced in accordance instead of a specialist amount? Would it be reduced to a primary care fee amount? And again, this
Representative Ward
Unverified
24:21
not worried about a copay because I'm not paying a $20 or $30 or $50. I'm paying for the cost of the visit. Right. Will the cost of the visit be reduced in accordance with the primary care visit? No. What
Speaker 56
24:32
ends up happening is the visit would stay the same.
The visit has not changed. Even though the co-pay is raised, the visit is not raised. In fact, in many insurance policies, the visits are actually reduced in the amount that they would be reimbursed over the last four to five years. So the cost per visit would not change. And many providers, for instance, might give a discount for full fee up front because they don't have to do any of the billings. But the co-pay that you don't have to deal with would be the only part that would be altered. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Representative Perry. Representative Viviano, you were recognized for
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
25:09
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm kind of interested why nobody from the insurance
industry is here to speak against this bill.
Speaker 56
25:20
We've talked to the insurance industry. We've talked to Blue Cross Blue Shield, QualChoice, many other providers that are in-house, in-state providers, and they have felt that though they may not support this bill, that they
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
25:34
wouldn't act against this bill. Would you anticipate any increase in premiums based on this reduction, potential reduction in copay?
Speaker 56
25:41
That's an excellent question. This is a relatively new problem across the United States. So there have been two states that have previously passed language that have been similar to this. And so far we have no knowledge at all of any premium increases in those two states. It's hard to ever get a handle on premium increases because, as you know, insurance goes up every year anyway. So what we're seeing is no additional premium increase in those states that have enacted those laws over those that have not.
Speaker 81
26:13
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Bibiano.
You have a question, you're recognized.
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
26:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know it's not part of this particular one, but would the therapy be restricted to those that a physician has, in fact, recommended? In other words, if an individual has had some orthopedic type of procedure and then normally there is a set amount of time they recommend for therapy.
Are we talking about that restriction also being part of this, or does that fall in another area that needs to be looked at? MR. It's
Speaker 55
26:59
an excellent question, and you're obviously aware of the complexities
Speaker 56
27:02
of the insurance industry. This really does not deal with that. Right now, for instance, we have national averages and number of visits. This would not limit number of visits. It would not change number of visits. Some of those are limited already by insurance policy. So, for instance, Blue Cross Blue Shield in the state limit policy requirements per year of 20 visits
that a person could avail themselves of any rehab services. Medicare has a cap that wouldn't necessarily reflect Medicare in this policy. But there are other ways that restrictions are done. It doesn't matter whether it had been referred by an orthopedic surgeon or someone else. It's usually the insurance industry has caps. That is not something that would be addressed with this. This is just addressed on a per-visit charge. So on a per-visit charge, an example would be if someone came to see me for eight visits,
which is considered a very reasonable expectation, average charge of about $80 per visit, the total cost per visits of eight visits would be $640, of which, under the present co-pay language, a $50 co-pay, they would pay $400 out of that out-of-pocket. The insurance industry would pay $240. That's the way it runs now. If this passed, then we might be under the primary care restriction would be $20 per visit,
visit, which the patient would pay $160, $20 per visit for the eight visits, and the rest would be paid for by
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
28:42
think my understanding is based on the fact that many procedures are only successful if the patient follows through. Absolutely. But, again, in this piece, we have no restrictions. Right. No restrictions. Are you comfortable, though,
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
28:59
that most policies do have the restrictions already in other parts?
Speaker 56
29:03
I would say that it's rare that an insurance company does not have some restriction or some monitoring on abuse or use of the services. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Representative
Carnot. Are there any other questions of the committee? Representative Farrar, are you closed for your meal? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. Representative Love, you are recognized for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'm a motion due pass. Committee, we have a motion due pass on Senate Bill 277. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Representative Farrar, you have passed Senate Bill 277. Thank you, committee. Yeah. Mr. Forbish, thank you for being with the committee today. Okay. At this time, committee, we have one bill left, Senate Bill 377. Representative Williams, you are recognized to present Senate Bill
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
29:59
377. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. This is Senate Bill 377 for my brother, Senator Eddie Joe Williams.
This bill is a simple
bill that provides additional avenues for notice for self-storage facilities right now. facilities have to give first-class mail notice to occupants if they need to handle their account. This bill allows for the self-storage facility to use e-mail if the occupant has agreed to receive e-mail and if the occupant has given an e-mail address to the self-storage facility. It also limits ñ let me back up.
I actually called the Attorney Generalís Office, Jim DePriest, whoís their consumer advocate and ran this provision by him, they had no problem. In fact, Jim Dupree said that he believes that e-mail notice is more efficient nowadays than traditional certificate first-class mail. Section 3 limits the cap on fees to $30 per month or 20 percent of the total amount of
monthly rent. And it also requires that if in a rental agreement the owner of the storage facility says that the value that they can store in a particular facility is a certain value, that that's the limit of which that storage facility may be held liable if something happens. So if the storage facility says you can hold up to, you know, a million dollars worth of stuff in here and you hold two million outside of the contract, then the storage facility is not limited, is not liable for the excess above the amount that's capped in the
the bill. Simple bill, and I'd
appreciate a good vote. Are there any
questions to the committee? Representative Wright, you are recognized for a question. Representative Williams, so
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:55
I assume this has no effect on Act 570? I've studied this really, really hard. Actually, I think this probably assists
Act 570. I would appreciate a good vote. And speaking about Act 570, Representative Williams, will you also be running Senator Williams' tort reform bill as well? Your brother's reform bill?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
32:14
We're feuding brothers on that issue.
Okay. Thank you. Representative Viviano, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
32:22
Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, how is the permission granted for the email? How do you verify that, you know? That's done in the real agreement. They
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
32:31
have to actually. So it's actually in the original
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
32:34
agreement that they grant the permission. Or a subsequent agreement, just like
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
32:37
now. In the original agreement, you put your address in there. That's where the notice will be sent. But if you give the self-storage facility and a new address, then that would be updated.
So if you give a new e-mail, that would also be updated.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
32:49
Okay. So there's something for the operator to go back in case that person says, well, no, I never gave you permission. There's
some kind of documentation that says, you know, do
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
32:57
you do that? Well, that would be good business practice if they did that, just like a physical address. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other questions of the committee, is there anyone in
the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill? If not, Representative Williams, are you close for your bill? I am close and I'd like to make a motion do pass. Okay, Representative
Perry, you're recognized for a motion.
All right, committee, we have a motion of do pass on Senate Bill 377. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, opposed? Representative Williams, you passed your bill. Thank you. Okay, committee, we have no further bills today so do I have a motion to adjourn okay that's proper motion we are adjourned
Agenda
HB1572
HB1635
SB263
SB277
SB377
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Tommy Wren Chair
Unverified
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
Booth Rand
Unverified
Speaker 7
Representative Jonathan Barnett Chair
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 18
Speaker 20
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 28
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
Speaker 35
Speaker 48
Derek Smith
Unverified
Representative Joe Farrer
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 37
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 55
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 67
Representative Ward
Unverified
Speaker 81
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Speaker 82
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified