Insurance & Commerce- House

Um, I guess the way I'm going to try to do it members is if it's on the regular agenda. We just need to be prepared to hear it, um, of course, as of yesterday, I started getting some text messages that certain members didn't want to run bills and it was late in the day. So that's the only way I know to do it. We just have to prepare for what's on the agenda, um, if I learn, um, fairly early that something's not gonna be, I'll try to let the members know, um, I will say just if there's something It's extremely contentious and there's a lot of um issues I'm gonna want to make certain that the public and everyone has notice of that and um I don't want anything just to to be run through and someone says they didn't know what's going to happen. So with that, um, I think we have a fairly, um, should be fairly quick today. We have a few bills and I believe we could start with Representative Warren, you have 2 bills. 1271. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, less war, District 84. Good morning. My name is Wes Lasanne. I'm a representative of the Arkansas Land Title Association. Thank you. You may present your bell. So House Bill 1271 is addressing an issue for lenders when it comes to new construction and any add-on secured by a new mortgage. Currently in Arkansas, if someone begins construction on a real estate project before the mortgage is filed, every person who does work and provides materials are placed in a position of priority when it comes to the status with the courts. That means everyone from start to finish is ahead of the lender who loaned the person the money. To build the house or whatever. The lender is in last place. Uh What this bill will do is limit the liability or inferiority of claims to only those who did work prior to the mortgage being filed. Once the mortgage is filed, nobody. Else has priority over the lender at that point. So right now, Anyone, if, if construction starts before the mortgage is filed, every single person who does work or provides materials. is superior to the bank who made the loan. For that Project. So what we're trying to do is stop the bleed. Once the mortgage is filed, no one else has priority over the bank or the lending institution from that point forward, but Arkansas law right now has it where everybody Regardless of when the mortgage is filed. If construction started before The mortgage was filed. is a head of the bank or lending institution. Thank you, Representative Warren. Would your guests like to speak or? I'll be happy to. Thank you, Chair. Um, As Representative Warren explained this bill really covers two things. Uh, one, it has a component for the recordation of an affidavit of non-commencement. Uh, what that affidavit of non-commencement would do, would establish priority for the lending institution, assuming that an inspector hired by the lender. So there's no lift for the contractors. It doesn't increase any burden on the contractors. Uh, if they inspect and file this affidavit of non-commencement either 4 days before or 4 days after recordation of the construction mortgage, that construction lender would be deemed to have priority over any mechanics or material in sla that they may be followed in the future, um, that affidavit can be contested, uh, and in the, in the instance of Actual fraud being proven by a potential lien claimant, then they would, of course, jump ahead and have priority if they commence construction prior to the recreation of the construction mortgage. The other component, uh, which representative Warren was testifying about deals with the doctrine of relation back. Uh, so, If construction commences today, construction mortgages filed tomorrow. Even the last person who comes to screw in a light bulb at the very end of the project 6 months from now, their priority relates back to the commencement of construction, and they have priority over that construction lender. What, what this bill seeks to do is remove the doctrine of relation back only as to construction lenders and contractors, material suppliers, etc. that provide labor or materials for a project. And so the, the idea is to get this where the construction loan can close so that they can, so that the borrower has funding to pay those contractors, material suppliers, etc. and with removing the doctrine of relation back as to uh construction lenders, then that creates a smaller set of people who have supplied labor materials prior to recordation of that construction mortgage. That group of uh Potential lien claimants because no lien will have been filed at this point can be dealt with, make sure that they've been paid secure lien waivers for what they have done, uh, and then allow the construction loan to go ahead and close and fund and put that lender in uh a first priority position. Thank you for your testimony. It appears we have a couple of questions from members, uh, Representative Allen, you're recognized for our question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you all for bringing this bill, but I do have a question. Um But you're saying that, you know, a BZ Company goes out and started. dirt work on a job. prior to the construction mortgage being filed. That person will no longer be a top priority in the lean process because the what what you're doing now, you're saying that the mortgage company will have the first one. Is that correct? No, sir, because that only, only if there had been an affidavit of non-commencement filed, would that construction lender jump ahead of that particular contractor. If that contractor actually did work prior to recreation of the construction mortgage, they would still have priority, but the painter who comes in and paints the interior of the house or whatever the building may be months from now would not jump ahead of that construction lender. That, that Excavator or person doing the dirt work would still be in a priority position and then the construction lender and their borrower could work with that particular contractor to make sure that they're paid and and and waived their lien rights for that work that was done. Oh, OK, so you primarily talk about secondary subs. Secondary subs, but even a general could commence construction prior to recordation of the construction mortgage, but the general would not have the ability to waive lien rights for their subs and suppliers. Each of them stand on their own rights. OK, thank you. Yes. Thank you, Representative McGre, you're already going to ask for a question. Thank you. Thank you, and you may have already answered this, but, uh, and I come from construction, so knowing most of, almost always the loan and everything is secured before they start the construction, correct? So I'm Tell me how and and I have used lees to collect money on a project that couldn't be paid before. If the bank goes in front of me on McKinney lies I'm an electrical contractor, plumbing contractor, whatever, and for whatever reason they decided not to pay me. The lane was a very good uh device for me to get paid. Now if the bank decides that They don't want to pay me and the owner don't want to pay me for whatever reason. Does it not delinquish my ability to collect that money. You, you will still have your lien rights, um, and, and assuming that the, I mean, even today, if, if it happens as it should, the borrower secures their construction financing records their construction mortgage before anything is done with respect to that project, you or any other potential lien claimant would be inferior to the construction. mortgage. So what this is attempting to do is is if somebody does anything that would be construed as commencement of construction, and it There's a whole laundry list of things, you know, any dirt work establishing temporary electric poles even in one Arkansas case. could be construed as commencement of construction. If something happens that's construed as commencement of construction. Those who provided labor or material. Prior to recordation of the construction mortgage still have priority over it. That lender and, and their borrower could then work with those potential lien claimants, and I hope at that early stage of the process, it's not a contentious relationship, and they're just like, hey, we got started a little early. Let me catch up with you and pay all of our bills so that we remove any lien rights for labor material that were supplied before. Those who then come in later in the project are going to be in the same position that they were as if the bar were got the construction loan established and recorded before commencement ever occurred, so it doesn't diminish your, your lien rights follow up. And this would be more for you less, so if that lane, if I apply the lien and I didn't get paid for whatever reason the The lending agency and our decided not to follow up with it. And that property started to change hands through the title company. Would that lane be picked up and taken care of in that process. OK, so Make sure we're we're clear. And he leans prior to the mortgage. Being filed. I understand what you're talking about still active. As underwriting counsel for Les's company, I would say, yes, sir, you're recorded lien would be picked up if that owner were going to sell that property, and we would require a satisfaction and release of that lien to ensure without exception to it. Thank you very much and I'll add one more thing. Before we do a final uh construction department. That bank is going to want to sign off on everything having been paid all. All work done on that property, and we're going to have people signing off that they've been paid. Thank you, Representative Boyton. You're recognized for question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, I just want to be sure that I understand what you're trying to do, and you touched on it by saying that at the end, And when it's filed and when it's closed. That the bank will have A signature that all bills have been paid all outstanding debts have been paid. Is, is it required that upfront That the bank ask The lender or as the one who's borrowing the money. Do you have any outstanding debts that you have not paid or do you have any liens. Against you property is is is there any requirement that requires a lender to find out his standing beforehand. Most if not all lenders require that their mortgage interest be insured with a policy of title insurance and as part of underwriting a transaction to issue a title insurance policy for a lender. We would have the borrower sign off on an affidavit and attest to there being no one who is owed money with respect to any construction, uh, that had taken place. Either they're outside the lean period or if we're still within the lean period, all of those contractors and suppliers have been paid in full. So we would have the borrower attest to that. In order to issue the loan policy for the purchasers in that. You, you, you would be sure as the title reviewer that there's nothing that's outstanding debt that's due that has not been paid. We would have the borrower's word for that, and obviously we would search the records to make sure that no liens have been recorded. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further, are there any further questions from the committee? no Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this bill. Seeing no Representative Warren, you're recognized. This has been an issue for in the industry for a long time. We're trying to clean it up. We're not trying to get away with taking care of any liens filed before construction, but we're trying to make it where lending institutions no longer worry once they're Mortgages filed I know that they're in a first position once they take care of any previous work done. And so this is just making it where we're on the same page and we begin work, uh, as it should be, not having to worry about everything that's done from beginning to end. So I would appreciate a good vote. OK. OK. We have a motion to pass by Representative Dalby. Um, is there any discussion on that motion? OK. That is a proper motion all in favor of motion do pass on HB 1271, say aye. And he opposed? Nay. Congratulations, your bill is passed. And Representative Warren, since you're there, if you would like to proceed on 1273. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is just providing language where there is none for the state of Arkansas. This language is mirroring what it is currently in place with the IRS. When someone purchases a piece of real estate. With any level of investment cash that is. In it and secures a loan for the balance owed the resulting loan is considered a purchase money mortgage. The FA is acknowledging that any lien they have is inferior to this mortgage. It will now be in Arkansas statute, uh, DFA is aware of this bill and is in support of it. If you'd like them to come and testify to that. But We're just trying to get this in statute to mirror what's happening at the federal level. Thank you, Representative. Questions about the committee? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this bill? Saying that Warren, you're recognized the clothes for your bill. We're just trying to get in line with the federal level and this will do it, so I would appreciate a good vote. OK. We have a motion do pass from Representative Eubanks. That is the proper motions or any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all in favor of motion do pass. Say aye. You say no. Congratulations, you have passed your bill rest in the morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Thank you all. Committee members, we are not going to hear 1184 today. Um, I believe that might be, there might be an amendment coming on that one. So we're going to move back up to the top represent Bentley, you would be next if you'd like to come to the table. Members, we are going to hear an amendment first on this bill, and the amendment is being circulated by staff right now, so rep in Bentley, you are recognized to proceed on your amendment. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee. Uh, this amendment that you're going to be receiving now is a very simply adding the acronym ISO and IEC back into the bill. It's all the amendment does, and I'd appreciate a good vote on the amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. You say no. Re Bentley, the amendment is passed and you're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for having me to the committee this morning. This bill is, uh, I put it under the category of who. So I had no idea that we only had one company that folks could get their accreditation from to uh do some inspections for sinks and plumbing things that go into modular homes. So I've been asked to run a bill to add another entity that these folks can get their accreditation from to allow some manufacturers to get their units here into Arkansas. It's really simply all the bill does, um, we work through, jump through some hoops to make sure everybody's got their questions answered, so the fire marshals, the health department, and the manufactured housing associations all on board. I have no opposition to the bill whatsoever. I'll be happy to take some questions if we have some. Represent Doby, you're right for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bentley, it's my understanding, and I, and I just didn't hear this, but they're still going to be held to the to the standard of the ISO or whatever that group is correct, they must be credited and must be proved that yes, you're gonna be held to a high standard. OK, thank you. That's what I understood. Thank you. Any, any further questions about the committee? Seeing that, is there anyone in the office who'd like to speak against this bill. OK. Singan representative Lusstrom, you are recognized for emotion. Motion to be passed. OK. We have a motion to pass as amended by Retro. That is a proper motion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed, say no. Congratulations Reverend Billy, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate your time today. We're going to wait on 12:37 until the end of um the meeting. so representative Kavanaugh. Would you like to present HB 1238. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Frank Kavanaugh, District 30. This is a sample bill. If you see it, it's really not very long. This is a constituent driven bill. So actually when they were going through a strict foreclosure, um, it was discovered that if the judge wanted to award the landowner, the more the people making the payments on the mortgage, um, attorney fees that could not happen because it was not in statute and this just simply adds the permissive words may award attorney fees. That's all it does. Then I'd take any questions. Thank you, Reverend Kavanaugh. Questions about the committee. Saying now, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak against this bill. Seeing nonpresentative Kavanaugh would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for my bill and I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Richardson, you recognized? Move you pass motion do pass, um, on this bill, all in favor say aye say no. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, members. Representative. Richardson, are you ready on HB 1237? Myself and introduce yourself. Good morning, Jay Richardson, District 49 Fort Smith. Good morning. My name is William Buckley and I'm a lawyer from Fort Smith, Arkansas. Good morning, members. Uh, HB 1237 is is entitled So the act to prohibit medical professionals from soliciting injured individuals. This came to me through a constituent that I had a couple of years ago where he actually was in an accident before he got home. He had people knocking on his door and calling his house trying to get him in to see different medical professionals and, and it, and it scared his wife, threw him off, so I just happened to speak with My counselor friend here, Mr. Buckley, to see what are the options and what's what's out there that we can do to help protect some of these guys from from this type of Um Issue that I'm seeing in my community after I spoke with Mr. Buckley, he kind of gave me some ideas and kind of helped me uh work through the, the wording of HB 1237 and I've got him here to kind of talk through that process of how we came to where we are now. My wife and I, we are small business owners in Fort Smith, and we almost exclusively represent people who have been injured in car wrecks. And recently, we've noticed a troubling trend we've always noticed it, but it's going to get worse and worse, and that trend is we'll have a client who comes in and sees us a couple days after a car wreck. And by the time they've gotten to us, they've received multiple phone calls. They've had multiple visits at their house from people claiming that they're from an insurance company. These people tell them we're from an insurance company. If you want to be compensated from your wreck, you need to go to this provider. So they get into the provider and typically the way it goes is those bills accumulate very quickly, much more quickly than they would if you went in to see your primary care physician or if you went into the doctor who you normally go see. So by the time they get to us, They've come in, they're in a vulnerable position because they've been in a car wreck. They've had someone come to their door, not knowing who it is. They've been told that they have to go or the insurance company won't pay their bills. And by the time they get to us, those bills are higher than they can ever pay. And what we find out is we've started working some of these cases is that there's no win, because then when I file a lawsuit on their behalf, we go to trial or go to court and the defense attorney finds out how my client got to this chiropractor. And there's not a jury in this state that likes the idea of someone getting to their medical doctor because they showed up on their doorstep. It's the same way with attorneys and that's why we attorneys have rules in place to prevent that from happening. We're not allowed to show up at a doorstep. We're not allowed to make a phone call. We can't solicit clients and that's essentially what this bill will do. It says that for the 30 days following the collision that no medical provider can reach out to someone who's been involved in a collision or other sort of disaster. It protects people who need to be protected when they're at their most vulnerable. But more than that, it also has some teeth to it. It provides a mechanism so that Injured victims, if they are taken for a ride where they get these high medical bills that said they're not owed. And that they can get reimbursed for any money that's been paid toward them. And then on top of that, it also allows them to get their attorney's fees, because they're gonna have to have someone represent them in that part of the case, because they're going to be in a lot of debt through no fault of their own. There's also a mechanism that allows a prosecutor to get involved because there's usually fraud in these sorts of cases, and they can prosecute for the case. And then finally, and I think most importantly, there's a mechanism that allows a private cause of action. So the person can take this statute and say, A, B, and C happened to me. I have a claim. I can sue this provider for the wrong that they've done. And I think what this will do is a couple of things. One, it's gonna stop this running from happening. And most importantly, it's gonna protect people when they're in the worst part of a wreck or another disaster that's occurred during the days following it. After day 30, if doctors or anyone else wants to reach out, they can do that. But it protects innocent victims immediately following a car wreck or other sort of danger. And that's, that's the bill. We'll take questions. Thank you for your presentation. Um, there are a couple of questions of Eaves you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Help me go through the part again about if someone goes to a health care provider for treatment, are you saying that they wouldn't get paid the healthcare provider would not get paid for the services they rendered. According to this bill, if they violated the law, what would happen is if they received payment, they would have to reimburse it because they got the patient by violating this law. And how are you going to prove they violated the law. Well, I think it would be proven like any other statute when it's broken, it'd be based on a lot of times there's a phone record of it. I mean, they're calling people, and if this goes into place, they're not allowed to actually call if they're visiting in person. I know with clients of mine who have ring doorbells and it'll show that person being on the doorstep. So it'll have to be proven like any other case in a court of law. It's not an automatic that someone can just say this and the medical providers in trouble, it'll go through the legal process like any other case. So What are your thoughts on preventing Healthcare providers, chiropractors, whatever for advertising their services to these folks that have been injured. No, it still allows them, there's a mechanism that still allows them to advertise, but 30 days later. No, they can do it in other forms. What they can't do is go to the doorstep. They can't contact through phone call or text message, but they can send letters, they can promote themselves on billboards at your door or phone calls or texts are the only thing you're trying to prevent and the and I say, I think it's worded to where it would include phone calls, texts, instant message, any sort of direct electronic communication that's occurring live. But anything that's a letter or referral or if there's an exception if they know someone previously and they reach out to them. are still all on the table. What about a a mailer just in general, we offer these services. That would be fine. They can send a mailer. I'm having trouble figuring out how you're gonna Separate the two. I mean, I guess if I get a mailer from a chiropractor, 3 days after I had a wreck and I go to that chiropractor, did I violate the law, or does it have to be addressed directly to me. We heard you had a wreck, blah, blah, blah. You cannot violate the law through a mailer at all. There's no way you can violate through a mail order because the difference is the position that puts the vulnerable person in. If I receive a piece of mail, it's not live contact where I'm having to answer you immediately. I can look at it. I can talk to my family. I can reach out to other people. You're not in my face. So any sort of mailing under this is perfectly acceptable. It's just that live contact of showing up on the doorstep or of having a live conversation with the person to where they're having to give you answers immediately. Thank you, Tosh recognized. Oh, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Reading this bill, the, it says that prohibits medical professionals from soliciting injured individuals. However, In your testimony, you said this would prohibit insurance companies from soliciting. That's what you just testified to. So I, I'm just curious, are we talking about prohibiting medical professionals? Are we talking about, uh, based on your testimony prohibiting insurance companies, which is No, and if I said that if I said it prohibits insurance companies, then I'm, I misspoke. I misunderstood, it does not, it does not apply to insurance companies. Now it could if one of the medical facilities uses an insurance company as its agent, but that's usually not happening. So no, it does not apply to the insurance companies. In fact, I've spoken to people who are involved in the insurance industry and represent some insurance companies. And, and they like this too because it's not frivolously running up medical bills that the insurance companies are ultimately having to pay. Follow up So as, has there been a problem with actually people in the medical profession, contacting individuals I've never heard of anybody having that's what I was saying to begin with Representative Tash. I've had that issue and in my community. I've had that in my community, I just wasn't aware of that. Uh, and I've got to ask this question and, and maybe it's uh, but I, I could have swore I heard you say a while ago that uh medical professionals, this was different from the Attorneys that they didn't solicit people involved in automobile accidents, did you? Did I hear that? I told you we would be holding them to the same standard, just to be clear that up because I, I thought surely I didn't hear no, no. I'm saying that we, we do not solicit well, and there are rules for us don't solicit unless it's by letter and and I we could go into the rules of professional conduct, but this basically makes it the same to where medical providers and attorneys, they would be following the same set of rules. OK, I just, I just want to make sure that I couldn't believe that. All right, thanks. Representative Johnson recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So in my day to day work in the emergency department, periodically with actually with some regularity, uh, I will have patients come into the emergency department saying why are you here? I had a car wreck today. What's bothering you? Nothing's bothering me. Someone called me and said I needed to go get checked. Yeah, right? Um, and, and I'm asking them what's hurting you? Is there anything bothering you? No, I just need some X-rays. Somebody told me come get x-rays, or I was hurting a little bit. I felt fine, but somebody called me. Is this the type of thing that you're trying to prevent with this law? Yeah, I think that's an example of what we're trying to prevent the because these runners, that's what they're called in the legal community, they going to the doors. and they're doing a lot of things when they get there. They're practicing law, they're practicing medicine, and frankly, they're just giving bad advice. But yes, that's an example of one of the things we're trying to stop. So, so if this law were to pass, the misunderstanding that I perceive that happens between individuals in a car wreck and whoever they're talking to, uh, around the need to seek care, that they might not even want, uh, that would potentially reduce some of this increased cost burden that that we see where patient is getting an ER bill, maybe getting, uh, having this issue with me where I'm trying to explain you don't need an X-ray and this sort of waste of health resource. I, I don't, I'm not saying someone's telling me to come to the ER, but could you see how someone could misunderstand a conversation and interpret that to me and I've got to go get care now. Sure, I think that's an example of one of the things that it would cause to decrease, and I think it would also cause even more than that. A lot of times when they're going to chiropractic facilities, and they're running up bills of $5000 plus in just a couple of weeks. So I think both of those things would decrease. Thank you. Thanks Johnson represent Gramlich, you recognized? Yeah, so I think I just need a little bit of clarity here. So you did say insurance, but you said they were acting like insurance, so these chiropractors are representatives of chiropractors who say they're an insurance agency saying that you need to go and get checked out. Like people acting as though they're misrepresenting who they are. OK. OK, so, so, so it's not usually someone from the actual insurance company because insurance companies don't want this to happen either, but they know. that if they pretend they're someone from the insurance company, it gives them some credibility with the person who's been victimized. So, OK, they wear that hat to say, oh, I'm with the insurance company and you need to make sure you do X, OK, yeah, I, I think that's where there's some confusion with, with Representative Tosh is like, these people are lying to the the victims of, you know, these accidents, right? OK, thank you. Thank you, Representative McCollum. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess set a, um, for me, maybe. My most basic just logic of what the bill says, why wouldn't I want A licensed medical professional to be able to reach out to a victim of an accident in the 1st 30 days. In a digital manner. I guess I'm trying to understand what's so much more intrusive about Like a text or like a targeted ad compared to like a letter. I, I think The difference that I see is when you receive something like a letter that is sent because a letter by its nature, if they send that the day of the wreck, it's not going to get there for 2 or 3 days. There's that time element of being able to think about things, following the collision, whereas these runners, they are showing up at the doorsteps within hours. They are finding my client's phone numbers and calling them, and we're talking sometimes was on the scene of a collision even there, or not the same, but shortly after the scene of a collision, they're calling and telling them, you need to get in here, the insurance company says this, and there's also more accountability with the letter. If a letter sent and they say, well with the insurance company and they're not, that's a great case in court, and it's a whole lot easier to prove from that standpoint, but there are ways you can disadvantage the victims with In-person visits and live communication that you just can't do with flyers and written materials. I hear what you're saying about the examples of uh these things that are going on, I guess I'm just looking at the language of the bill and specific to You know, the definition on the digital and I'm, I'm having a hard time of understanding why that. is always a problem if a medical professionals wanted to utilize Some type of targeted. Means to help within that 30 days and I don't think it prohibits the targeting as far as male or just sending out I'm talking like targeted digital ad of some sort. To direct it to someone who's been involved in a collision. Someone who needs help, yeah, and typically I've seen a lot of these cases. I've seen Probably hundreds of them. And the way it normally works is when a person's hurt, they go and seek out a doctor or a medical professional. There's no other context in which medical professionals are clamoring to get to patients, not like this, and this is the only time when that occurs. So I, I just think there's a distinction when there's a car wreck involved because you've got the insurance component and not for all, but for some, it's an easy payday. So I guess the the thought is if someone already has a provider. This is like the theory is this is someone cutting in line. And I don't even see it as cutting the line. I'm sorry. No, no, no, you're you're, you're, you're fine. No, I think, I think the bill even describes, you know, if you've already got a provider or a doctor that you already use, you can go directly to them the day of. This is trying to protect those individuals like the constituent that I had who somebody's knocking on his door and his wife is there and he hadn't even gotten home yet, uh, and he had an accident, so it's it's trying to protect those guys and that doctor too, if they have a previous relationship with the patient. So they've already treated them, they can go to the doorstep if they're involved in a wreck, because there's an exception carved out for that too. This is just the medical providers who have no connection whatsoever to this victim showing up within hours of the collision that's occurred. Thank you, Lustrom. You recognized. I'm, I'm a little confused. I get it, but what they sound like predatory. Folks, and, and I get that, but there's. When you go door to door on anything, whether you're the fuller brush man or selling cookies, you don't have to answer the door and you don't have to buy it. I'm just wondering. Why we are stepping up in this individual basis and saying close your door. No, I don't think we are, we're saying, I don't think it's the same as somebody going door to door trying to sell pest control. I think this is something where they've identified an individual who has been in an accident and they stop what they're doing and they go to their house or they send them a text message. You need to go see this person for whatever reason. I mean, they've taken it to a whole new level of creepy. There's no argument there. I just. I'm not sure that. I We can't stop everybody from going to somebody's door or stop somebody from doing something stupid or even I just, I'm confused at This, this is an ambulance chaser. Plain and simple, they've been around. They're going to be around. I'm just wondering if this is going to stop that completely. I don't think so. Well, other states have passed it and I was speaking to a lawyer in Ohio a couple of weeks ago about it. And he says it's decreased dramatically. Now, it's not going to stop it completely. I get that. I'm not naive and I know that it's still going to occur to an extent, but the other states, Tennessee's done it, Kentucky's done it. Ohio's done it, and There's been a drop, not necessarily, I'm sure it still happens there, but it helps. And that's what we're trying to do is help these people who are in those positions. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Johnson. Representative Eaves, you're next in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm still, I think I know where you're going with this, but I've had a car wreck before, and very soon after that wreck, I got inundated with attorneys, letters, mailers, you know, they can sue somebody on my behalf. I, I think I agree with you on preventing the door to door stuff. But it's the digital or the male or whatever that I think you're trying to prevent that I'm having a little harder time swallowing. So can you explain why I get inundated by attorneys wanting to sue someone on my behalf after a wreck, how that's different from having a medical professional do the same thing. You've had a reg, you, you, you've injured, you may have been injured, you probably need to get checked out. I've also had healthcare professionals refer. Someone close to me to an attorney because they had a right. So help me walk through that if you don't care. OK, so the first point, it's the same standards that attorneys have to follow. So they'll still be able to send you mailers. They can bombard you with mail and any sort of written materials that they want to. The same thing that attorneys are allowed to do. So It's in line with the same rules. Now attorneys can't do that, and it's the same thing for them. They would not be allowed to text message. They would not be allowed to make a phone call because attorneys can't do those same things via mail. We can, we can send letters, and of course, the same rules, like if I have a previous client, for example, who I represented in a car wreck 5 years ago, and I find out they're in a car wreck tomorrow, I can call them up and say, come and see me because I have that previous relationship, and this is the same way. It pretty much tracks with the same rules and responsibilities that apply to attorneys, and we're putting them on medical providers. So the only way I was getting contacted by attorneys that I didn't know that wanted to sue on my behalf was male. It would be, and I, I would have to look at the rules, but I think you can send mailers, you can online, you can have a Facebook page. You can have a website and I'm sure you could go look that up, but attorney contact me via my Facebook page? No, I cannot. So if you're in a wreck and I see that as an attorney, I can't reach out to you and say, hey, ever, ever, well, I'm not gonna say ever, because if you were a previous client, I could reach out to you by your Facebook page, and I could say, hey Remember me? I represented you 3 years ago. I want to do it again, but if I didn't know you, we had no other type of relationship, and you were in a car wreck? No, I am not allowed pursuant to the Arkansas rules of ethics to reach out to you by Facebook Messenger. Again, I understand that, and I, I totally agree with you on having some stranger show up at my doorstep. Selling whatever. I don't need it. Uh, I'm just a little concerned about, you know, preventing whatever healthcare professional it is from, you know, using You know, I guess male or a letter or something within 30 days of that accident or they can, they can still contact you by mail, yes, within that 30 days. OK, but you can't. No, lawyers can too. What was the 30 day thing? Did the 30 days is so this bill says for the 1st 30 days that medical providers cannot reach out to you in person, by phone, by text, but as far as attorneys go, no, attorneys can never call clients. And say I want to represent your attorneys can never get on Facebook and say, I want to represent you. Attorneys can never send text messages and say I want a mailer the day after I I can I can see people. Perry. You recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I've been in insurance business for 39 years and I've fought this for for years. Um, I, I no longer do the auto and homeowners insurance, but this is a A really great bill. I have an actual case. One of our employees at one of the companies we own. She was involved in an accident at on August 23rd at 1 o'clock. On August 24th at 7:57 a.m. She gets the first phone call from a Bonnie. I'll leave the name of the company out. Um, with an 824 at 8:30 a.m. she gets drew and, uh, he said that he was with the third party that works with her insurance company. So now she's thinking, oh, he's legit. So at 8:24 at 1:02 p.m. got Garrett. Now Garrett, he represents the insurance company as well. And then at 9:57 a.m. on the 26th. Uh, Mar Marlena. Called and she's the patient advocate. And then, uh, here's a text message that Drew followed back up with and told where she needed to go for her visit, uh, gave me the address, phone number, feel free to reach out to the clinic anytime. And then, um, Marlena also sent her a text message and said, here's the information, schedule your appointment it's necessary. And then, um, Even um Marlena worked for a procureer and here's a copy of her card from a company out of Cersei that, uh, she worked for that she was a runner, as I say. She, she followed the police reports and tracked it all down, but You know, this, this lady was understandable enough to where she didn't fall for it, but I have a lot of clients that are maturing and when they get these phone calls, they don't know the difference. I've actually had a client call me in the doctor's office going, hey, my company said I need to come here, and I said no, they didn't. You need to get in your car and leave. He said, well, I wondered because nothing's wrong with me. So trust me, and actually that passed away yesterday, so. But uh I Would, uh, My question was this is what this would help prevent. Thank you. And to go to your point, I actually had an attorney file for it, who I was representing and He didn't know what was happening. So I think if someone who's sophisticated enough to know the law really well falls for it. It shows you what people who are even more unfamiliar would be able to fall for. Thank you, Representative Burton. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So if I understand in following up Representative Eves's question. The Attorneys are on these, these people then would be on the same footing that attorneys are relative to the call. That's correct. OK. Follow up if we may. The statement you made about the mail service 2 to 3 days, this out in there if they ever get it, OK, my, my follow-up question that's just editorial comment, my follow-up question is, do you have any indication or have you had any indication that those that make these early contacts in our uh contacting these accident victims. Have you had any indication that they're inflating their prices whenever they bill for them. Yes, they are and the best answer I can give you is I've compared some of the facilities who are contacting versus some of the ones who are not, and I had a recent bill recently. It was a chiropractor who had reached out, and I think the first visit was $1500 and I talked to a couple of other chiropractors who said that visit should be around $2000 to $300. So the answer is a resounding. Yes, they are inflating those bills. So this would help from the standpoint of the insurance premiums relative to the goal for an accident. I would think it would have to help to drive it down. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reverend Tosh, be recognized. Thank Mr. Chairman. What's the uh I'm sure it's in the bill. What's the penalty for someone in the medical profession that would violate this if it becomes law. From a criminal or a civil standpoint, or both. I think if it's a criminal violation, it's a D felony. D felony D as in dog and dogs. So it's the smallest of the felonies and if it's a civil violation, then at that point, it allows, there are a couple of punishments. One, the money that the provider wrongfully took once they're proven to be in violation of it, they have to pay that back. They have to pay for the attorney's fees for the person to recoup that money. And then there's also a private cause of action because each of these cases is a little different. And maybe the individual has damages that others don't, so they can collect that as well. OK. And What's the penalty for an attorney that would violate Just what's the penalty compared to the one from the medical I don't, know if I contacted clients, I would probably I'd be afraid I'd lose my license, to be honest with you. I think that would be my penalty. But I don't know that there's a private, it would be a malpractice cause of action, I would think that they would be able to bring against this. That's on the civil side. What about on the criminal side? I'm just, I'm where I'm going, I think you see where I'm going. I do on the penalties, medical. Attorneys, both were contacting or if they did. Right. How the penalties compare? Are we, are we being on the same Uh, playing field level playing field for the medical people versus the attorneys. I'm just curious and the issue is going to be, I think that the, the attorney's conduct has to be regulated by the Arkansas Supreme Court, so there's not a statute in place because I think historically speaking, the General Assembly hasn't been able to regulate attorney conduct, but I can assure you. The buyer caught, that would be a big problem. And uh one last question, and I understand that. I know y'all got you call the best. I understand all that. I'm just trying to, in my mind, understand why we are imposing this law on medical professionals and holding them to a different standard as far as contacting individuals from the General Assembly than we are for attorneys. I'm just trying to understand why we're doing that. I think the problem at this juncture is not with attorneys. I think it's with those medical providers. That's why people are showing up at the doorsteps. That's why bills are inflated, and that's why vulnerable people are being contacted. Is McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess where I'm at right now and I'd love any uh Framework to kind of rethink what solicitation should and shouldn't be like I also would not like someone coming to my door or someone in my family after our constituents for that matter. I just kind of take it back to the uh like the digital examples and reaching out. think it just said like electronic communication. I, I don't see how that is solicitation, but I'm open to understanding why that should be considered that. I'm just one guy in the committee. I haven't even talked to anyone else. That's just kind of where I'm at right now. So when we, I know there was an example where and even like uh Representative Perry just said where his, the lady who worked for him had been contacted through text message through two different people trying to get them to go and visit a certain location. That's again what we're trying to avoid right here. That's the electronic piece that we've identified. Now in this, in the bill itself, when you go down, it tells you what is not covered. So in uh Line 20, it says on page 2, the section does not prohibit solicitation for targeted direct mail advertising and other forms of written radio, television ad, providing the advertisement does not involve coercion, duress, or harassment. Or is not false, deceptive or misleading. Thank you. um Repson Wooton recognized. Do you find that there are certain people and then I'm not saying this in a demeaning way, but they get confused if I've had an accident that's, that's pressure uh stress of that and uh for anyone to jump in right within our is Perry pointed out, seems, seems to be uh Unnecessary in some cases, particularly if they say, well, I'm not her. I'm not, I'm not feeling any pain, and, uh, you know, it may come about 3 days later. I, I've always been told, uh, Captain from uh having an accident with the state police car. But uh it it it was a emergency run that I was on, so I got hit, but um It just, it just seems to me that it's undue pressure being brought is that, is that correct? Is that what y'all are saying, Yes, sir. I think you make a great point because I think anyone who practices this type of law, they can tell you, it's really intimidating to a client when they come into your office, because maybe they're hurt and they're confused and they don't want more than what they're Entitled to what they should be compensated for, but they're afraid if they don't follow this mysterious phone call and the directions on the other end of that, that they're gonna lose everything because they weren't doing what the insurance company told them to do. So if it gets to where it's 30 days, at that point, they've had time to consult people of their own choosing, not people who have contacted them a couple of hours somehow after the wreck. So I think your point is right on. Thank you, Representative Johnson. So the goal of stopping the communication whether it's a door to door knocking, a phone call, a text message, an email, uh, the goal is to stop, um, inappropriate solicitation, deceptive practices, um, in coercion, correct? And, and so, um, I guess for me when I think of door to door, I can make a choice to not answer the door. But when I get a phone call, it's harder to make that choice not to answer a voicemail, but I could when I get a text message. I'm, that isn't an intrusive process, wouldn't you agree where I'm sent something and I'm going to look at it and read it. And I can't really refuse that. To me, when we're looking at the difference between face to face communication versus electronic. For me, electronic is I didn't, I can't refuse that. I've seen it now. I've read it and now I have to discern, is this a real communication from someone with my insurance company that that where I, if I don't take care of this, I'm gonna lose my coverage, or is it not? I, I think that to me is the difference a little bit, wouldn't you agree? Yeah, I think that's a great point. Thank you, Representative Starmer, recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This reference is line 18 and 19 on page two, you know, about the reasonable attorney fees incurred when collecting a refund described in subdivision 3A, this section. Uh, why is it necessary to add this language to the bill? Are they not? is a client potentially, if, if they're in violation of this and they they're not allowed to retain you on their own accord without having to put this into the bill. They can, they can retain me, but what that does is it guarantees that the prevailing party gets attorneys' fees on it because otherwise they're going to be out the money that they have to pay an attorney to hold this medical provider responsible for following the law, it should have followed in the first place. That's why that's in there so that there's a mechanism where they can recoup that. Could a judge not make that judgment for you? Well, not if it's not in the statute because in Arkansas typically attorneys' fees, there has to be some sort of provision that allows you to get them. It's not a common law thing that you're just going to get attorneys' fees on a claim. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK. Thank you committee. um seeing no further questions, um, I have been noticed that there are, there is someone or some people who do want to testify against this bill. So, um, if there's anyone at this time who would like to come up and testify against the bill. I'd ask that you make your way. Yeah Yeah, OK, you see. If you would um identify yourself, um, who you're with and you may proceed with your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robbie Wills. I'm with WSG Consulting, and we represent several clients that are opposed to this bill. Among them a organization called Public Information Advocates. I will explain their interest in just a second and also the Arkansas Chiropractic Society. I'm here today hopefully to provide some some history and some institutional information that's a polite way of saying I've been around too long. And I have seen this issue quite a bit both as a legislator and as a lobbyist. And the bottom line on this is, um, This has been a problem in the past. Our organizations have been working diligently on this for over 15 years. We worked very closely with the General Assembly and 2013 to pass at 5:15, which regulates the activity of, of marketing a healthcare practice through the use of procurers. What does a procurer? A procureer is a salesperson. A procurer is somebody whose job it is to communicate with potential patients of a medical practice. A lot of this gets directed at chiropractors, but frankly, there are a number of what we would consider healthcare providers who have used services like this, not just here in Arkansas, but throughout the country. Osteopaths physical therapists, things like that. The challenge that we have had here in Arkansas is that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners in 1999 actually passed a rule very similar to the one described to you that lawyers, uh, have to abide by. That, that rule was almost identical to the to the operating clause you see in this bill. You can't talk to anybody for 30 days after they're in an accident. There was an immediate court challenge, and that case went to the Arkansas Supreme Court and was overturned on the basis of well established case law at the United States Supreme Court under the doctrine established in the central Hudson versus PSC case in 1980 that basically says, You have a First Amendment protected right to speak for your business. It's commercial speech is the is the term. You have a First Amendment right to do that as long as you're not being deceptive or dishonest or lying. So that's why the the rule that was proposed by the chiropractic board was overturned and we've been struggling almost every 2 years when the legislature comes into session to find a solution to this. There was a, uh, Longtime parliamentarian, many of you knew Tim Massinelli. Tim always said, you know, not every aggravation warrants an act of the General Assembly. It is aggravating when somebody knocks on your door, whether they're selling fuller brushes like uh, like Representative Lindstrom said or there selling magazine subscriptions or if you've been in an accident and they want to make you aware that there's a healthcare provider standing by to treat your condition. It's aggravating. However, as long as that person knocking on the door doesn't say, I'm from your insurance company and you have to go to Doctor Smith. As long as they don't say that, they're not breaking the law. Act 5:15 of 2013 regulated the registration of these people. They have to be registered to do that. We have to know who they are. We have to know who they work for. And the proof is in the pudding. The complaints for solicitation by chiropractors prior to 2013 was in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 complaints a year filed with the board. Since that Act has been in effect, it's been in the single digits, I think we're still asking for some information on the past couple of years, but as of the last General Assembly, it was down to 1 or 2 a year. Now the the number should be 0, but to inconvenience one or two or 2. address the aggravation of the one or two people that complained while making dozens, if not several 100 gainfully employed Arkansans criminals because they have knocked on the door to ask for someone's business. I think it's a bridge too far. So, uh we had some suggestions in the past. In fact, Representative Perry ran a, a substantially similar bill, I think in 2019 and uh it was, it came at the very end of the session, I think in the last couple of days of the session we were trying to work with you on an amendment. That would strengthen Act 5:15 of 2013 that would make the violation of that act by a healthcare provider, a, a, uh, Incident that will result in license revocation. There are ways to strengthen the law that we have on the book, on the books to better address the situation. So Just to sum up, in conclusion, the two objections that we have to the bill as it currently stands is under the central Hudson standard. There is a government interest at work here, and I appreciate and applaud, and we've worked very hard to address the government interests, but our argument is it's not substantial enough of a government interest to warrant criminalizing otherwise lawful activity and because the second point is because it criminalizes an otherwise lawful activity that people aren't engaged in. and have invested their business resources in. It's not a narrowly tailored solution, and without a government interest and a narrowly tailored solution, you know, frankly, the bill is written that will suffer the same fate as the rule of the chiropractic Board tried to put in in 2001, so, uh, with respect to my good friend, Representative Richardson, my, my request would be if we could have just a little bit of time to work with him on an amendment. I think we could hopefully address his concerns. And strengthen the laws that we have on the books, identify any bad actors that are out there and put them out of business without putting people out of work. I to answer any questions. Thank you for your testimony. There are a couple of questions. Representative Johnson, you recognize, I don't think you correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this bill is creating criminals out of people that have a viable business. It just changes their business model, correct? I mean, they can still carry out the activities of their business. They just have to wait 30 days. Well, there's just a waiting period, so I mean I just, I take a little issue with that comment because I don't really think that's truly reflective of what the bill does. We're not taking away a business model. We're not taking away we're not creating criminals. We're just creating a parameter under which a person can operate their business. I'm missing I'm trying to question D felony is making a criminal out of someone and if I knock on someone's door today and say I'm, I'm with Doctor Johnson's office and he'd be happy to sorry about your accident. We'd be happy to treat you. That's legal. I'm not a criminal. If this bill passes, I'm a criminal if I do that. Only if you do it within 30 days. If you do it outside of 30 days, it's not a crime. Correct? Well, according to this, yeah, outside of 30 days according to this bill, but I have a constitutional right within those 30 days to speak about my business to potential customers as long as I'm not lying and saying that I am from the insurance company and you have to do this or, you know, we have the deceptive trade Practices Act that makes that illegal in Act 515 makes that illegal. Another question, and I'm going to stop, just what's the attorney's constitutional right. I mean, I think they're limited to the same time frame, did they not also have a constitutional right to, if, if that's the argument, I guess, I guess I'm trying to say if, if it's good for one entity, why is it not good for the other? Where does that constitutional right change? Well, Arkansas hasn't overturned that regulation other states have lawyers operate under the rules of the Supreme Court in Arkansas. My argument to you today is if a lawyer were to stand up and file a suit against that regulation that it would not withstand court challenge. I mean, I just, I don't see how it could. Thank you, Representative Wootton. You're recognized? I did. There we go. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you say that you worked on this for 15 years, and it keeps coming back. Does that not tell you something? Well, what it tells, um, I'm sorry, what, what it tells me, Representative Wooten, two things. Um, about every 2 years, something like this comes up. It always seems to come out of Fort Smith. No offense to anyone here. My understanding, the story I was told when I was a legislator is that years ago, there was one lawyer who thought he had a client. And then that client got contacted by a chiropractic runner who was affiliated with another lawyer and ended up referring that person to this other lawyer, so this lawyer got mad at that lawyer. So that's where the no solicitation rule came from with the Chiropractic Board and you know, every, like I said, every 2 years, yes, sir. OK, but you're talking about lawyers. We're talking about medical professionals. Yes, sir. We're talking about people here that if if they have been injured, they're not in a condition to make a decision on the front doorsteps, are they? Well, I would say some probably are in that category. Others that that have contacted us over the years and said, I appreciate knowing that I have options. I have somebody that will treat me. I have somebody that's willing to help me. So it's not a one size fits all solution, which is what this bill is. You, you said that we shouldn't as legislators we look for protecting this for our constituency. Are you, are you saying that Representative Richardson had just because he just had one, he said he had indicated he'd had several people and I ventured to say that there's hardly any on this committee that haven't had the same complaint, and I know I have. Of people So, are you saying that it's not our responsibility to protect the public. It is your responsibility to protect the public representative and particularly their constitutional rights, and there should be a very high bar that has to be cleared before we take a constitutional right away from someone, and the First Amendment is very clear as long as I'm telling you the truth, I knock on your door. That's not illegal. That's protected by the constitution I'll be honest with you, I get tired of people coming before us and telling us that something's unconstitutional because they don't know whether it is or not until the judge makes a mistake. and says, our court says it's unconstitutional. Is that not correct? That's correct in the United States Supreme Court has done just that, Representative you know for sure if this is unconstitutional. I, I plead guilty to being a lawyer. So when the US Supreme Court says something's unconstitutional and this looks like a duck and walks like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck. Yes, sir. I Um, so you feel like that these people that strong indication that they inflate cost and that it's cost an insurance companies and ultimately cost every citizen of the state who has insurance, maybe a higher premium because of the increased costs inflated by these early arrivals on your doorstep. Yes sir, I'm saying that would be bad if true, but I've not seen evidence to back up that claim that was made at the We have another piece of legislation that says it is true. And that it was given a due pass yesterday by the judiciary. Is that not correct? I'm not familiar with what you're referring to, Representative Wootton. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Johnson, yeah, some I'm not a lawyer, but I, I want to understand better, I think I understand there are two ways in which laws get made. One is through case law, right? Where a court rules on a case and we say, OK, this is precedence now and this is case law. One is through statute where we pass laws, right? And until that statute is challenged, the statute is the law. The Supreme Court case in which you're referencing was it directed around this particular statute that we're Proposing to pass or was it a different law? Language very similar to this, yes sir. So I'm not saying very similar. This, this law, if it were to pass, would become the law. Until challenged and a court said something different and whatever a court matter might do around this law is speculation. Yes, sir, but my argument to the committee is if we're trying to fix the problem, let's craft a bill that will survive the the inevitable legal challenge if we want to run this bill as is. It will be challenged. There's really no way it's, I mean, I'm not a judge. I can't say that. I would be shocked to my core if this survives a temporary restraining order hearing. So I'm asking if we could pull the bill down, give me a week. Uh, and there's several other lobbyists working on this. I'm not going to name any names, but if you give us just a little bit of time. We've got an amendment that I think will narrowly tailor. The bill to target the activity that we want to outlaw without creating all the unintended consequences that my clients fear that this bill has, and I would hope that You know, the deliberative process will produce a better outcome, something that will actually accomplish the goal. That's all I'm saying. and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Follow up to the comment, don't you, have you, do you have any proof? Solid proof that this will be contested in court if it's passed. Yes, sir, I do. Well, do you feel like relative to the amendment that it's a committee duty, or is it not the author of the bill. To make a Amendment to an amendment. Representative Wood contacted him. Yes, sir, I have. And what is he said as of the day he filed the bill, he said he was open to an amendment and I was working on it and you know, I respect the member's right to run a bill whenever he wants. I'm not saying anything untoward happened there. Um, but we do have language that we would love to present that we think will accomplish the goal that that this bill is trying to accomplish and again we agree with the goal. We want to eliminate il le g al activity. We want to eliminate people who are fraudulent. We want to eliminate deceptive trade practices within the medical profession. That's all we're trying to do, Representative Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Represent McCollum, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And actually, I think it's essentially been addressed. I mean, any I would like to see, you know, how something could be more narrowly tailored, but you know, ultimately I think that's up to the bill sponsor and to your point, that's up to him, so. OK, thank you. I'm saying no further questions from the committee. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to, anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for the bill. Saying no one, is there anyone else in the other two would like to speak against the bill. Seeing no one Representative Richardson, you are recognized. closing out. I would just like to make a comment on the Constitutionality of this because I know that was an issue that came up and I'd like to be able to rebut that if I could. I did not just throw this bill together and give it to Representative Richardson without thoroughly researching whether it was constitutional. It's not going to do us any good for you to put something up there that's not going to survive judicial scrutiny, and this is what I do. The case that's being cited from the Supreme Courts from the 1980s. The law of laws and changes during the decades following that. Similar statutes have been upheld by, I think, the 6th Circuit by other courts. And it's not that they're overturning the previous Supreme Court decision, but they're more narrowly tailoring this statute. Now, it's been, the contention's been made that this statute similar to the one that Arkansas has held unconstitutional, and that's just not true. The one that was held unconstitutional. There were two big differences and actually the Arkansas Supreme Court noted it in the opinion. They said two of the things that could have been done. One is put a time limitation. On it. We have that. There's a 30-day time limitation. The second one was you've got to limit the class of victims. You can't just say you can't solicit all people. You've got to define who the victims are, and we've done that in this statute because it talks about you just can't go after accident victims, people who have been involved in disasters. So I'm confident that this is going to survive judicial scrutiny because the Arkansas Supreme Court has indicated that it can, and there are other Supreme Courts and Court of Appeals. Who have said, it does. So if nothing else, it's not as clear cut as some might make it seem to be. So I think that we let our Supreme Court rule, and I'm confident that it will withstand that scrutiny. Thank you. Members, any further questions from either the bill's sponsor or the other presenter at the table. OK. Oh I apologize. Represent Wooton. I have a motion at the proper time, Mr. Chairman. OK. Any, any further questions? OK. Seeing no Wooton, you're recognized. I recommend the do pass. OK. Uh, Representative Wootton has recommended do pass. And that's a proper motion. Members as their discussion on the motion. OK, seeing none, we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye. I say no. Yeah I have it. You've passed your bill. And members, I believe we have a couple of bills that can go fairly quickly, um, if we'll be patient, uh, Representative Steel, would you like to go to the end of the table? Uh, SB 76. This is a senate bill members SB 76. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senate Bill 76, this is a bill that they'll take a rule that's been in place for 10+ years and codify it. This bill has the ability to create a more competitive surplus lines market that is needed in Arkansas. Um, not that we compare ourselves to the Senate, but this did pass 350 over there. And uh with that uh I'll leave it there. Take any questions. Uh, questions from the committee. Seeing none is really one of the others who'd like to speak against this bill. Um, do you have anyone else like to speak for this bill? No, um, in time, you're the clothes for your bill. I'm closed for the bill. Oh, I'm sorry. OK. Um, we have a do pass motion by Representative Lundstrom. Um, that's a proper motion all in favor, say aye. Any post say no. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. And thank you committee. One last bill, Senate Bill 70, Rein Lindstrom. that Yes. year I'm like Represent Lustrom, you may present your bill. Yeah Um, ladies and gentlemen, it's no secret that the insurance rates are going up sometimes 25% or more. Right now, your agent gets a 30-day notice that that insurance rates going up and you get a 10 day notice. That's if it gets there in the mail. Um, this bill simply says the insurance agent will get a 60 day notice and you will get a 30 day notice and it'll give our customers, including myself, more time to shop from insurance, which I know is such a joy but so important. With that, I'll take questions. Thank you, Representative Lundstrom. Questions from the committee. OK. Saying none, um, is there anyone who in the audience would like to speak against this bill. Represent Lundstrom, you recognize the close for your bill. It's pretty straightforward bill. I would recommend to pass and thank you. OK, we have a proper motion of do pass by Represent Lonestrom, um, all in favor say aye. Any post say no. Thank you Bill passes year. Congratulations. Remember that is it for today. Appreciate your patience and we are adjourned.