►
From YouTube: 4/28/2021 - Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
All
right
so
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
senate
commerce
and
labor
to
order.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
the
rule.
A
We
have
a
full
agenda
this
morning,
as
everyone
knows,
we're
hybrids,
so
we're
in
between
zoom
and
being
physically
present.
We're
gonna
go
in
a
different
order
for
the
bills.
Today,
I'm
just
gonna
go
ahead
and
get
it
started
and
opened
up,
but
we
are
to
start
with
ab250
and
then
once
we
do,
ab250
we'll
go
in
the
normal
order.
That's
on
the
agenda,
so
I
want
to
call
assemblywoman
hotagey
to
the
table.
A
E
Thank
you
good
morning,
vice
chair
and
members
of
commerce
and
labor.
It's
so
nice
to
be
with
you
again
and
excuse
me.
I
forgot
it
was
jean
day,
so
I
am
not
wearing
jeans
today,
but
thank
you
for
taking
the
opportunity
to
schedule
in
here
assembly
bill
250.,
I'm
sandra
haudegee
assemblywoman
for
assembly
district
41,
and
today
I
will
be
presenting
assembly
bill
250,
which
establishes
the
birthday
rule
for
persons
who
are
currently
enrolled
in
the
medigap
plan.
E
What
I
would
like
to
do
vice
chair
with
your
permission,
is
walk
through
some
brief
remarks,
then
turn
it
over
to
my
co-presenter
christopher
carruthers,
and
I
believe
yes
she's
right
there.
We
also
have
miss
heidi
spinner
with
their
health
underwriters,
who
will
be
giving
remarks
after
mr
carruthers?
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Okay,
thank
you.
Well,
the
genesis
for
assembly
bill
250
was
from
one
of
my
constituents.
Rick
bronstein
over
coffee,
mr
bronstein
explained
that
nevada
has
never
had
an
open
enrollment
for
medicare
supplement
plans.
E
Medicare
does
not
cover
all
medical
services,
and
it
also
does
not
pay
100
percent
of
certain
covered
services.
Although
medicare
pays
for
certain
preventative
services
and
covers
most
medically
necessary
services,
the
percentage
of
out-of-pocket
health
care
expenses
for
medicare
beneficiaries
can
be
sizable
and
typically
increases
with
age.
E
Medicare
supplement
insurance,
also
known
as
a
medic
gap
policy,
is
a
distinct
type
of
insurance,
which
is
sold
by
private
companies
to
fill
the
gaps
in
original
medicare
plan
coverage.
Medigap
policies
are
guaranteed
issuance
at
certain
times
for
eligible
beneficiaries,
as
specified
by
state
and
federal
law.
E
E
E
Assembly
to
assembly
bill
250
requires
an
insurer,
non-profit
hospital
and
medical
or
dental
service
corporations
that
issue
an
insurance
policy
that
provides
for
the
payment
of
expenses
not
covered
by
medicare,
to
offer
an
annual
enrollment
period
to
change
a
plan
of
equal
or
lesser
benefit.
Without
being
subject
to
medical
underwriting,
the
open
enrollment
period
would
begin
the
first
day
of
the
birthday
month
of
an
enrollee
and
continue
for
60
days.
This
bill
also
provides
that
30
to
60
days
before
the
beginning
of
the
open
enrollment
period,
an
insurer
must
notify
enrollees
of
the
dates.
E
I
would
like
to
be
clear,
though
this
measure
is
not
a
free
pass
for
people
to
obtain
medigap
policies
who
do
not
currently
have
them.
Instead,
it
allows
current
enrollees
to
consider
if
policies
are
available.
Other
policies
are
available
that
better
suit
their
needs.
Vice
chair,
I
would
now
like
to
turn
it
over
to
christopher
carruthers,
with
health
underwriters.
To
give
some
brief
remarks
followed
by
heidi
sterner.
F
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
and
assemblyman
haddage,
for
inviting
me
to
be
a
part
of
this.
So
my
name
is
chris
carruthers,
I'm
an
insurance
broker.
I've
been
doing
this
now
for
30,
plus
years
in
southern
nevada.
My
family
has
also
been
in
it
for
50
plus
years.
We
have
a
family
agency,
we
work
with
many
clients
in
the
health
insurance
arena
and
we
have
probably
over
well.
F
As
we
call
it,
the
birthday
rule
is
an
important
bill
that
will
help
many
nevadans,
who
are
insured
by
medicare,
along
with
a
medicare
supplement
plan,
also
known
as
a
medigap
plan.
Currently,
anyone
who
has
medical
insurance
has
an
open
enrollment
once
a
year,
regardless
of
their
health
status,
they
can
move
chain
switch
to
another
medical
plan.
This
would
include
nevada
health
link,
medicaid,
small
and
large
employers,
medicare
advantage
plans
except
those
who
have
a
medicare
supplement
plan.
F
Also,
we've
been
working
with
the
nevada
association
of
health
plans.
There's
an
amendment
of
language
change.
We
worked
with
tom
clark
on
that.
Even
yesterday,
and
we
are
in
full
support
of
that
as
well,
thank
you
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
E
Thank
you,
mr
carruthers,
and
vice
chair.
There
was
a
there
was
an
amendment
submitted
yesterday
to
the
committee
manager,
which
is
should
be
on
the
list.
Not
we
can
forward
it
to
you
as
well,
but
this
is
a
friendly
amendment.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
so
she
you're
is
it
miss
thurman
sterner.
She
is
sturm
she's
going
to
be
there
just
to
support
right.
Mister.
C
Just
wanted
to,
I
have
a
presentation
that
we
would
normally
cut
over
first
wanted
to
just
mention
that
there
are
currently.
G
H
E
If
I
can
viceroy
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
ms
sterner
or
mr
carruthers
to
help
answer
that
question
and
senator,
would
you
repeat
your
question.
H
So
from
what
I'm
reading
the
birthday
rule,
because
it's
called
the
birthday
rule
has
been
utilized
in
other
states
and
looks
like
it
has
the
ability
to
help
the
constituents
potentially
get
onto
insurance
when
they
have
not
in
the
past,
and
I
was
curious,
how
often
or
what
the
percentage
is
that
we've
seen
in
other
states
that
have
done
this,
I
mean,
what's
the
potential
gain
of
getting
individuals
on
insurance?
Is
it
like?
You
know,
two
percent,
five
ten?
I
was
just
kind
of
curious
if
you
had
any
data
on
this,
since
this.
F
F
I'll
do
my
best
because
it's
kind
of
a
what
what
traditionally
happens
with
medicare
supplement
plans.
The
only
time
someone
can
go
to
is
when
they're
first
initially
eligible
for
a
supplement
plan.
So
that's
when
they
first
enroll
in
medicare
a
and
b
they
have
a
window
to
where
they
can
go
to
a
supplement
without
any
health
questions
or
if
they
retired,
and
they
already
had
medicare
and
then
they
retired
from
their
employer,
and
they
had
group
medical
coverage.
They
are
then
able
to
go
to
a
supplemental
plan
without
any
questions.
F
Anyone
can
buy
a
supplemental
plan
today,
who's
on
medicare.
They
just
have
to
answer
a
health
statement
like
we
do
when
we
buy
life,
insurance
or
health
insurance
in
the
past
before
the
affordable
care
act.
And
so
what
happens
is
that
we
have
not
seen
so.
I
don't
see
a
trend
of
people
moving
this
direction.
F
What
I
would
anticipate
is
that
those
that
already
have
insurance-
and
I
do
have
a
letter
from
a
client
who
basically
says
chris-
I
have
been
able
to
move
because
of
my
pre-existing
conditions
and
my
doctors
that
I
see
do
not
accept
medicare
advantage
plans.
Those
hmo
and
ppo
plans
are
available.
They
work
directly
with
medicare
services,
and
so
what
this
is
going
to
really
do
is
just
allow
those
that
have
a
medicare
supplement
that
want
choice
to
see
other
providers.
They
can
actually
then
move
to
the
plan
and
still
be
able
to
afford
it.
F
It
becomes
a
financial
burden
to
some
of
them
and
to
be
able
to
move
to
a
lower
cost
plan
will
allow
them
the
freedom
to
continue
to
have
the
quality
of
care
that
they're
looking
for
seeking
and
on
a
medicare
supplement
plan
to
elaborate
a
little
bit
more
there's
they're
bound
they're
not
bound
by
a
network
of
providers.
They
pretty
much
have
the
ability
to
seek
care
throughout
the
united
states.
That's
the
advantage
of
a
medicare
original
medicare
with
a
supplemental
plan.
A
Members
any
additional
questions,
so
I
had
a
question
on
the
amendment:
the
strikeout
of
innovative
benefits.
So
let's
what
are
innovative
benefits
and
what
are
we
taking
out
without
limitation.
G
I
can
help
answer
that
question.
If
you
would
want
me
to
this,
is
a
heidi's
turner
for
the
record.
Innovative
benefits
are
optional,
they're
not
required
and
there's
a
basically
with
medicare
supplements.
There's
there's
like
a
plan
g
plan.
F,
there's
a
core
set
of
benefits.
Innovative
benefits
would
allow
the
insurance
company
to
add
additional
benefits,
such
as
vision,
dental
hearing
and
they're,
just
an
add-on
to
the
core
supplemental
benefits.
A
You
so
can
I
ask
additional
question
about
that.
Does
that
also
include
so
you
could
have
dietary
supplements?
You
could
also
have
some
coverage
of.
I
won't
say
it's
like
so
like
a
so.
If
somebody
has
a
breathing
machine
different
things
that
they
need
to
get
covered,
is
that
considered
optional
or
is
that
under
the
standard
medical.
A
F
Vice
chair
the
why
we
were
willing
to
remove
it
is
because
it
allows
the
freedom
because
some
of
the
plans-
so
let
me
take
a
step
back
so
the
core
plans
that
medicare
have
created
the
alphabet
of
plans,
a
through
n
they're,
all
standardized
they're,
all
identical.
The
only
thing
that
separates
a
carrier
is
the
plans,
is
the
name
of
the
carrier
and
the
premiums.
F
Okay,
so
a
plan
f
is
a
plan.
F,
a
plan
to
use
a
plan.
G
for
example.
Then,
what's
happened
is
some
carriers
have
added
the
innovative
benefits
which
is
gym,
memberships,
dental
vision,
hearing
to
kind
of
name,
a
few,
that's
common
in
nevada,
and
we
didn't
want
that
to
stand
in
the
way.
So
if
someone
has
a
traditional
g
plan,
they
could
with
the
way
the
language
now
reads,
is
they
can
move
to
a
g
with
innovative
benefits,
with
no
consequences
so
they're?
They
don't
have
to
be
treated
unfairly.
F
They
can
purchase
any
plan
g,
whether
it
was
g
or
innovative.
They
can
move
at
open
enrollments
once
a
year
to
whether
it
has
innovative
or
doesn't
have
innovative.
They
can
actually
have
those
new
added
benefits.
Some
of
the
innovative
plans
believe
it
or
not,
are
less
expensive
than
the
current
traditional
medicare
supplement
plans,
which
is
kind
of
odd,
but
the
reality
is
it
does
so.
It
allows
people
to
move
flexibility
to
move
back
and
forth
at
their
birth
month,
regardless
of,
if
it's
innovative
or
not.
That
was
the
intent
of
the
language
change.
E
A
So
if
a
person
gets
in
and
let's
say
you
know,
because
typically
families
find
out
right,
they're
on
medicare
and
then
they're
looking
for
the
additional
medigap
and
then
they're
searching
for
the
coverage.
So
if
the
person
is
in
a
rehab
facility,
what
happens?
What
is
the
process
if
they're
denied
this
bill
passes?
They're
denied
the
medigap
coverage
the
family
seeking
to
try
to
get
this
additional
coverage
for
other
things?
What's
the
pathway
who
do
they
go
through?
Are
they
calling
medicare
or
who
are
they
calling
and
if
there's
a
denial.
E
E
So
if,
when
you're
eligible
for
medicare,
you
then
buy
a
supplemental
insurance
plan
which
you're
eligible
for
when
you
first
sign
up
for
medicare
without
without
underwriting,
then
what
the
birthday
rule
does
is
it
allows
you,
during
your
birthday
month
to
switch
insurance
policies
without
going
through
that
underwriting,
so
it
only
that's
the
only
time
the
birthday
rule
would
apply.
E
So
if
someone
already
has
medicare
and
in
the
future,
then
they
want
to
buy
a
supplemental
policy,
but
they
didn't
go
purchase
it
during
that
time
period
when
they
weren't
eligible
for
the
exemption
of
health
and
writing,
then
that's
completely
separate,
and
apart
from
this
bill,
am
I
if
and
then
I'll
just
I'll
just
turn
to
my
co-presenters
to
make
sure
I
stated
that
accurately.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
because
I
was
just
asking
because
I
know
it's
like
it's:
it's
like
it's
just
very
interesting
bills
that
are
coming
through
this
session
because
I
had
to
deal
with
medigap
this
summer,
but
we
were
looking.
I
was
looking
for
additional
coverage
for
my
dad,
but
he
was
he
was
already
on.
A
He
already
had
medigap
right,
but
there
were
things
that
I
was
seeking
and
then
you
know
then
it's
and
that's
so
I'm
just
trying
to
get
an
understanding
about
what
would
happen
when
in
a
situation
where
somebody
is
super
sick,
we
need
to
adjust
the
plan
right
and
then
the
denial
that
could
happen
and
I'm
just
wondering
what
the
process
was,
because
I
had
to
call
like
the
medicare
office
and
then
say:
hey
here's,
the
things
that
I
want
and
then
I
had
to
put
him
on
the
phone
to
then
talk
through
and
adjust
different
things,
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
like
I
get
what's
what
it
is,
but
I'm
saying
if
somebody
says
yeah
you're
switching,
but
these
optional
things.
F
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
chris
caruthers,
again
for
the
record
generally,
people
go
to
through
an
insurance
professional
to
help
them
enroll
in
a
plan
and
just
to
clarify.
Medicare
standard
has
standardized
benefits,
and
so
whatever
medicare
pays
for
the
supplemental
plan
will
pay
pick
up
the
balance,
so
there
is
no
additional
benefits
you
can
purchase
through
a
supplemental
plan.
The
innovative
is
just
little
extra
health
care
options
that
are
kind
of
just
nice.
Little
giveaways,
there's
no
really
additional
coverages.
You
could
purchase
like
a
long-term
care
coverage
policy.
That's
that'll!
F
Never
that's
not
a
part
of
it
at
all!
So
really
it's
just
the
supplementals
are
just
to
pick
up
the
the
balance
of
what
medicare
pays
for
for
medicare
doesn't
pay
for
it.
The
supplemental
can't
pay
for
it
either.
If
medicare
pays,
the
supplement
will
pick
us
up
picks
up
the
balance.
The
simplest
way
to
understand
it
hope
that
helps.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
think
it's
also
important
to
note
and
and
just
I,
I
brought
an
identical
bill,
mr
bronstein
and
I
were
talking
back
in
19
about
this
and
we,
you
know
one
of
the
things.
I
think
that
it's
important
and
I
think
it
may
help
you
understand
how
you
know.
What
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here
is
that
we
people
when
they're,
trying
when
they're
in
the
system
and
then
they
have
a
some
problem,
creates
a
pre-existing
condition
and-
and
you
know
that
that's
part
of
the
issue.
I
It
doesn't
actually
change
the
benefits
they're
getting
for
the
most
part,
except
for
the
innovative
stuff,
but
it
allows
them
to
move
to
a
new,
cheaper
plan
and
it
keeps
their
costs
down,
otherwise,
in
nevada,
they're,
locked
into
a
plan
for
the
rest
of
their
lives,
and
that
plan
is
going
to
increasingly
be
priced
out
of
reach
it.
Those
prices
are
going
to
go
up
because
their
pool
gets
smaller
and
more
expensive
as
time
goes
on,
and
this
is
one
of
the
things
that
you
know.
This
is
how
they
make
money.
I
I
appreciate
that,
but
by
the
same
token,
we
have
a
duty
to
allow
our
constituents
just
like
our
surrounding
states,
to
get
into
cheaper
plans
if
we
could
make
it
available
because
that's
up
to
us,
we
get
to
make
that
decision.
So
just
that
was
my
two.
E
If
and
if
I
could
jump
in
mr
senator
pickard
had
a
great
point,
chair
and
vice
chair-
is
that
what
happens?
Is
that
as
premiums
go
up,
people
just
aren't
locked
into
an
insurance
plan
with
higher
premiums?
They
end
up
dropping
them
because
they
can't
afford
them,
and
so
this
would
allow
them
to
not
have
to
drop
the
insurance
plan.
Just
maybe
transfer
to
one
that's
equal
or
lesser
benefits.
A
Got
it
all
right,
thank
you
for
that
senator
lange
good
morning.
A
E
Thank
you.
This
is
assemblywoman
sandra
houdiki
for
the
record
and
we
actually
built
that
into
the
bill.
So
you'll
notice
that
in
the
bill
there
is
requirements
for
the
insurance
companies
who
have
insureds,
with
supplemental
plans
to
send
them
annual
notifications
60
days
before
their
birthday
to
start
sending
them.
Notifications.
A
D
Thank
you
bye.
Thank
you
vice
chair
good
morning,
if
you
would
like
to
testify
in
support
of
ab250,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue.
D
G
Good
morning
vice
chair
neal
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
tom
clark.
That's
t-o-m-c-l-a-r-k,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
association
of
health
plans.
As
you'll
see,
we
brought
forward
the
amendment
working
with
the
bill
sponsor
shareholding.
We
appreciate
her
work
on
this
bill
and
I
want
to
thank
senator
neil
for
your
questions
regarding
the
amendment
and
ms
sterner
and
mr
carter
did
a
great
job
of
explaining
why
the
innovative
piece
is
taken
out,
it
doesn't
lessen
the
legislation
at
all.
G
It
actually
makes
it
so
that
those
equal
or
lesser
plans
are
still
available.
So
thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
your
time.
This
morning,.
D
D
G
Hello
good
afternoon,
good
morning,
sarah
spearman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
alex
kembaros,
that's
a-e-l-x-c-a-m-b-r-o-s
speaking
in
support
of
ab250.
As
you
know,
medical
needs,
barium
of
many
medicare
recipients.
Selecting
a
medicare
supplemental
plan
can
be
challenging
for
a
few
reasons,
and
they
may
later
realize
that
the
plan
they
selected
may
not
be
the
best
choice
for
them,
or
perhaps
it's
become
too
expensive,
and
they
like
to
review
what
other
options
are
available
to
them.
G
Giving
consumers
an
option
to
choose
an
equal
or
lesser
plan
during
a
special
enrollment
period,
coinciding
around
their
birthday,
gives
them
flexibility
to
choose
a
plan
that
can
better
suit
their
needs
with
over
a
hundred
thousand
nevadans
enrolled
in
a
medicare
supplements
plan
ab250
is
essential.
I
want
to
thank
assemblam
and
harigi
for
presenting
this
bill
and
I
think
the
members
of
it
can
be
further
consideration.
Thank
you.
D
D
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So
we
will
any
closing
remarks
or
you
guys
are
good
assembly
woman
hug
all
right.
So
we
will
senator
senator
hardy.
J
Thank
you,
madam
mice,
chair
as
I
read
it
it's
more
than
a
month,
it's
up
to
90
days.
If
your
birthday
was
on
the
first
of
a
month
when
you
start
looking
at
that.
H
E
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
hardy.
This
is
assemblywoman
sandra.
How
did
you
for
the
re
for
the
record?
Our
language
is
for
60
days
from
their
birthday.
E
B
Spearman,
thank
you
vice
chair,
and
so
we
we
will
now
open
a
hearing
on
assembly
bill
4
and
I
see
commissioner.
K
Thank
you
very
much
good
morning,
chair
chairman
vice
chair,
neil
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
barbara
richardson
and
I'm
the
insurance
commissioner
for
the
state
of
nevada,
I'm
here
to
present
the
first
of
the
division's
three
bills,
which
is
assembly
bill.
4..
K
This
bill
address
is
changed
to
the
nevada,
insurance
guarantee
association
and
that's
contained
in
nrs
chapter
687a,
I'm
also
going
to
be
joined
by
bob
lottermill.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
he's
made
it
there.
He
is
okay,
I
want
to
make
sure
he
was
on
the
phone
and
he's
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
insurance
guarantee
association
and
if
we
were
sitting
in
front
of
you
just
assume
that
he
was
right
next
to
me
and
bob's
here
to
provide
assistance
in
answering
the
committee's
technical
questions.
K
If
you
have
any
so,
the
division
has
also
provided
for
you
all
an
explainer
table,
and
it
summarizes
both
the
language
and
the
reasons
for
the
requested
changes
for
each
section
of
the
bill,
and
we've
done
this
for
each
of
the
bills
that
we're
presenting
in
explaining
the
request
for
the
bill.
I'd
like
to
provide
some
of
the
context
on
why
we
thought
it
was
important.
K
As
most
of
you
know,
the
insurance
division's
primary
focus
is
the
regulation
of
the
nevada's
insurance
industry
and
that
produces
approximately
19
billion
of
annual
premiums
written
on
nevada-based
risks
that
is
insurance
premium
tax,
provides
the
state's
fourth
largest
source
of
general
fund
revenue
and
it
generates
over
440
million
of
taxes
collected,
and
that's
for
the.
This
is
just
a
note
for
the
last
fiscal
year.
K
Insurance
is
currently
the
largest
financial
sector
in
the
united
states
and
is
the
only
financial
sector,
that's
primarily
regulated
by
the
states,
rather
than
the
federal
government
and
most
insurance
carriers
doing
business
in
nevada,
transact
insurance
in
multiple
states
and
many
are
national
companies
through
the
national
association
of
insurance,
commissioners
or
the
naic.
The
commissioners
work
together
to
create
a
regulatory
framework
that
provides
increased
uniformity
for
insurers,
for
data
sharing
and
to
support
and
to
help
create
more
efficient
markets
and
better
consumer
advocacy.
K
This
bill
is
intended
to
update
nrs
687a
and
is
based
upon
model
language
that
was
created
by
the
national
conference
of
insurance,
legislators
or
encoil.
The
national
conference
of
insurance
guarantee
funds
and
the
naic,
the
nevada,
insurance
guarantee,
association
or
guarantee
association
is
what
we
tend
to
call.
It
is
a
non-profit
association
created
by
the
nevada
legislature
to
pay
certain
claims
of
nevada
insurance,
consumers
in
the
event
of
a
property
casualties,
insurers,
solvent
insolvency
and
there's
a
possible
maximum
payout
of
300
000
per
claimant.
K
The
following
is
a
brief
overview
of
the
changes
being
proposed
in
ab4,
so
sections
1
and
18
remove
the
references
to
nrs
687a.110
in
relation
to
the
provisions
being
eliminated.
In
section
15
of
this
act,
sections
two
three
and
four
add
definitions
for
the
terms.
Persons
and
self-insurer
section
five
limits
the
claims
which
may
be
asserted
against
a
person
insured
by
a
policy
issued
by
an
insolvent
insurer.
K
Section
10
removes
outdated
reference
language
and
some
existing
languages
rephrase
to
provide
clear
clarification
of
what
the
guarantee
association's
requirements
are
in
providing
a
plan
of
operations.
Section
11
requires
the
commissioner
to
provide
the
association
with
a
copy
of
any
complaint
which
seeks
an
order
of
liquidation
against
a
member
insurer.
K
Section
12
extends
the
subrogation
rights
of
the
guarantee
association
for
a
cause
of
action
which
the
insolvent
insurer
would
have
had
had
if
such
sums
had
been
paid
by
the
insolvent
insurer.
So
changes
of
the
guarantee
association,
rights
of
recovering
to
or
on
behalf
of
insured
or
of
or
excuse
me
of
an
insolvent
assure,
and
that
would
be
to
only
those
insurance
whose
aggregate
net
worth
is
more
than
10
million,
and
also
to
any
person
who
is
an
affiliate
of
the
insolvent
insurer.
K
Their
barred
claims
directly
with
the
receiver
of
the
insolvent
insurer,
section
14
reinstates
the
current
requirement
that
claimants
first
exhaust
all
other
available
insurance
coverage,
including
a
right
to
defense
before
they
assert
a
claim
with
the
guarantee
association,
section
15
eliminates
provisions
that
cover
notifying
the
commissioner
of
any
member
in
a
hazardous
financial
condition
or
to
request
the
commissioner
order.
An
examination
of
a
member
insured
believed
to
be
in
hazardous
financial
condition
and
allows
the
board
of
directors
to
make
recommendations
to
the
commissioner
regarding
matters
generally
related
to
improving
or
enhancing
regulations
for
solvency.
K
These
changes
are
being
requested
because
the
association
does
not
investigate
nor
receive
the
necessary
financial
information
on
member
insurance
to
perform
these
functions.
Section
16
expands
the
immunity
of
the
board
of
directors,
the
commissioner
or
the
representative
of
the
commissioner
to
include
liability
for
failure
to
act.
Section
17
changes
the
time
frame.
K
An
action
will
be
stayed
to
allow
the
court
hearing
an
act,
the
court
hearing
on
an
action
against
an
insolvent
insurer
or
insolvent
policy,
and
it
gives
them
more
leeway
in
the
time
given
to
the
defendant
to
prepare
a
proper
defense
and
amends
the
language
regarding
access
to
insolvent
insurers
records
to
ensure
that
the
association
has
access
to
the
insolvence
insurer
records
to
be
able
to
act
in
their
stead.
This
concludes
my
introduction
of
ab4
and
I
stand
available
for
any
questions
you
may
have.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Do
you
have
anyone
else,
that's
going
to
present
with
you.
K
So
bob
lautermill
is
here
to
answer
questions,
but
he's
not
doing
any
separate
presentation.
B
Okay
committee
members,
any
questions.
A
Thank
you.
So
I
had
a
question
on
section
nine.
I
wanted
to
know
the
circumstances
where,
because
I
guess
what
struck
me
was
in
section
nine,
because
section
nine
is
pretty
long,
so
section
nine.
A
If
you
go
to
lines
40
through
42,
where
it
says
amenable
to
personal
jurisdiction
of
the
courts
and
like
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
because
amenable
means
like
if
you,
if
you
want
to
be
so,
what's
the
what's
the
intent
of
that
language
and
the
use
of
that
word
amenable
in
line
42
and
then
I
have
a
different
question.
L
Okay,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
hopefully
address
any
questions
or
concerns
that
insertion
phrase
there
is
just
basically
intended
so
that
we
can't
be
litigations
or
sued
in
the
domiciled
state
of
the
insolvent
insurer.
L
The
intent
is
to
limit
any
potential
litigation
and
jurisdiction
of
any
civil
matters,
involving
the
act
to
nevada
courts
and
there's
some
other
language
that
also
addresses
that,
further
on
in
the
statute
that
we
have
a
right
to
address
any
matters
involving
civil
cases,
we
want
to
keep
them
in
nevada
for
purposes
of
interpreting
the
statute.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
and
then
I
had
a
second
question
in
in
a
section
nine
which
this
this
is
the
part
where
you
guys
are
discussing
the
payment
in
excess
for
a
claim
that
arises
out
of,
and
so
I
I
was
curious
about
the
section
where,
if
this,
if
the
association
determines
that
there
may
be
more
than
one
claimant
and
may
establish
a
plan,
so
that's
permissive
right
and
so
and
then
it
also
says
in
its
discretion
deems
equitable.
A
A
L
Sure
well,
the
intent
of
this
paragraph
is
is
really
relates
to
the
availability
of
funds.
It's
not
intended
to
operate
on
a
specific
individual
claim,
in
fact,
there's
already
a
provision
that
relates
to
the
same
concept.
This
is
just
more
of
an
expansion
of
the
same
concept.
If
you
look
in
the
in
the
next
section,
further
down
I'll,
just
read
it
it's
the
associate.
This
is
already
in
the
existing
statute.
L
The
association
may
pay
claims
in
any
order,
including
the
order
in
which
the
claims
are
received,
or
in
groups
or
categories.
So
this
provision,
or
is
really
just
an
expansion
of
that
concept,
and
it's
intended
in
case.
There
are
funding
issues
and
you
know
at
the
onset
of
it
insolvency.
L
It
gives
the
association
some
leeway
in
determining
which
claims
may
be
more
appropriate
and
from
a
practical
standpoint,
there
could
be
workers
compensation
claims,
as
opposed
to
general
liability
claims
which
are
in
have
have
different
time
frames
for
requirements
of
payment.
So
this
is
intended
more
to
address
if
there
would
be
some
sort
of
complication
or
availability
of
proceeding
with
the
ongoing
addressing
the
ongoing
obligations.
L
So
but
it
it's
really
just
an
expansion
of
a
concept
that's
already
contained
in
the
existing
statute,.
A
A
and
I'm
looking
at
the
insertion
of
the
hmo
and
the
hospital
plan
corp,
because
this
is
where
a
claim
is
insert
asserted
against
a
person
by
the
insured,
and
so
I
wanted
to
get
an
understanding
about,
because
this
is
new
language.
Can
you
talk
about
just
a
little
bit
more?
I
know
there
was
a
high
level
overview,
but
just
a
little
bit
more
about
the
insertion
of
the
hmo
and
that
provision
in
section
13.
L
Sure
section
5
8.
L
Director,
nevada,
insurance
guarantee
association,
sorry
it's
best
to
look
at
sections,
5,
8
and
13
in
the
same
context,
because
they
operate
in
a
similar
fashion,
and
I
can
tell
you
what
the
best
way
to
explain.
It
is
probably
what's
in
the
existing
statute
already
and
then
you
can
understand
what
this
is
intended
to
change.
L
In
the
current
statute.
There
are
certain
entities,
insurer,
related
entities
that
are
cannot
meet
the
definition
of
a
covered
claim,
so
their
claims
are
excluded
and
in
section
eight
and
then
in
section
13,
these
entities
are
not
permitted
to
file
claims
against
the
policyholders
the
insureds.
Instead,
they
have
to
reposition
the
claim
and
situate
it
it's
diverted
into
the
estate,
and
the
idea
is
that
these
are
sophisticated
business
entities
dealing
with
insurance.
L
They
can
withstand
the
effects
of
the
liquidation
and
they
can
tolerate
the
the
estate
process,
the
the
proof
of
claim
process
and
the
you
know
the
potential
eventual
distribution
of
of
the
amount
from
the
estate,
so
section
5,
8
and
13
basically
are
adding
in
three
new
types
of
entities
which
are
considered
similar
to
insurers.
They
act
like
insurers,
and
so
they
would
operate
the
same
way
as
in
the
existing
statute
as
other
insurers.
L
L
It
would
not
prevent
claims
that
the
stat,
the
new
statute
kind
of
clarifies
that
it
does
not
prohibit
claims
outside
of
that
the
the
prior
installment
policy,
so
the
claims
would
not
be
excluded
and
would
not
have
to
be
positioned
in
the
estate
if
the
claims
are
greater
than
the
protection
that
had
been
provided
under
the
insolvent
policy.
L
A
way
to
look
at
the
guarantee
association
we're
an
early
payment
mechanism.
Insolvencies
can
be
confusing
and
it's
basically
a
bankruptcy
of
the
insurer
and
the
process.
There's
insufficient
funds
is
primarily
the
reason
of
the
insolvency
and
the
liquidation
process
can
be
years
before
it's
resolved.
10
20
years,
so
the
guarantee
association
operates
almost
like
an
early
payment
mechanism.
L
A
A
All
defenses
under
the
policy
as
well,
and
so
I
was
super
curious
about
that-
one
because
in
the
original
language
you
know
was
the
right
under
the
policy,
but
you
guys
went
further
to
be
very
explicit
about
when
a
claim
arises
from
the
same
facts,
injury
or
loss
that
gave
rise
to
a
covered
claim,
and
then
you
want
them
to
exhaust
their
right
to
the
defense
under
the
policy,
and
I
really
wanted
to
get
an
understanding
about
the
insertion
of
that
particular
piece
of
the
language,
because
it's
kind
of
like
you're
you're,
basically
saying
any
any
you're
saying
a
lot
with
that
phrasing.
A
So
I
wanted
you
to
give
me
an
example
of
or
explain
it
and
then
give
me
an
example
of
what
this
actually
would
apply
to
when
you
limit
the
defense
and
say
that
you
must
exhaust
all
those
remedies
within
this
context.
L
Sure
the
exhaustion
provision
the
best
way
to
understand
that
is
it's
an
attempt
to
avoid
any
non-duplication
of
damages,
and
so
under
an
insurance
policy.
Basic
the
two
primary
rights
are
the
right
to
a
defense
and
the
right
to
be
indemnified,
so
the
insertion
of
that
is
really
just
intended
to
ensure
that
an
insured
has
a
fully
exhausted
a
particular
type
of
right
under
another
insurer
policy.
L
The
intent
of
the
exhaustion
provision
is
to
avoid
non-duplication
of
the
of
the
damages.
There's
no
uncovered
amounts
or
amounts
that
would
not
be
if
it's,
if
it's
not
covered
by
another
insurer,
then
the
association
as
a
payer
of
the
last
resort
would
step
in
and
assume
the
obligation.
L
So
in
a
scenario
where
it
could
apply
is
in
a
like
a
complex
litigation
with
continuing
losses
spread
out
over
many
years,
a
party
an
insurer
may
have
20
insurance
policies
that
could
be
applicable
to
the
loss
and
various
ones
of
those
would
be
providing
or
have
an
obligation
to
provide
a
defense,
and
so
we
would-
and
we
current
we
currently
operate
in
this
manner.
So
this
is
not
a
new.
L
This
would
not
create
any
sort
of
new
claims
handling,
but
we
would
want
that
insured
to
fully
exhaust
the
right
under
those
other
policies
and
that
right
includes
the
right
to
a
defense.
If
the
insured
is
already
receiving
a
defense,
meaning
its
legal
bills
are
being
paid
by
another
insurer.
L
Again,
there's
no
lapse
of
any
coverage
or
loss
amount.
L
So
there
there
would
be
no
amount
owed
under
our
statute,
so
they're
already
receiving
the
benefit
of,
in
that
example,
the
payment
of
legal
fees
by
another
insurer.
So,
but
if
they
exhausted
recovery
or
payment
of
the
legal
fees
from
those
other
insurers,
then
the
association
as
a
payer
of
last
resort
would
would
be
there
to
to
address
the
issue.
A
So
when
I
was
reading
this
last
night
in
section
16,
you
guys
inserted
the
no
liability
or
no
cause
of
action
for
any
failure
to
act,
and
I
guess
you
know
immediately
what
I
thought
about
was
you
know
in
a
in
tort
right,
you
have,
you
could
have
omission,
you
could
have
a
failure
to
act,
but
you
have
a
duty
and
there
still
may
be
liability
that
attaches
to
you,
even
if
you,
because
you
failed
to
act.
A
So
I
really
wanted
to
understand
the
insertion
of
that,
because
that
is
a
liability
and
it
says
no
cause
of
action
and
of
any
nature
shall
arise
against
any
member
insurer
association
or
its
agents
or
employees
right
and
so
with
there's
a
couple
of
contexts,
there's
tort
context,
there's
the
business
context
where
you
either
omit
you
have
a
you,
have
a
duty
under
some
business
rule
and
now
you're
pretty
much.
There's
no
liability.
If
you
fail
to
act,
but
in
a
normal
situation
that
could
endure
liability
to
you.
L
Yeah
sure-
and
you
mentioned-
I
think,
the
key
word
and
how
I
understand
the.
L
Bob
laudermilk
executive,
director,
nevada
insurance
guarantee
association
and
how
I
would
understand
that
or
explain
the
the
purpose
of
it
again.
The
statute
already
has
an
immunity,
a
pretty
broad
immunity
for
any
reasonable
action
taken
and
in
the
context
of
errors
and
omissions,
professional
coverage.
L
The
statute
already
addresses
the
error
side
of
it.
Adding
in
a
failure
to
act
is
basically
including
the
omission
title
as
you
mentioned,
so
it's
it's
taking
into
account
both
potential
sides
of
professional
liability,
the
the
error
side,
which
is
already
an
existing
immunity,
and
it's
it's
also
trying
to
account
for
the
potential
omission
side
of
it.
A
A
L
So
this
is
really
just
a
further
clarification
of,
I
think,
just
the
general
insurance
concept
of
errors
and
omissions,
but
but
the
statute
already
has,
even
if
there
was
a
failure
to
act
and
there
was
some
sort
of
institution
of
some
sort
of
lawsuit
against
us,
we
would
still
assert
the
immunity
statute.
As
is
I'm
saying
that
the
reasonable
action
we
did
take
all
necessary
reasonable
action.
So
the
failure
track
is
just
a
component
of
the
the
liability
of
it.
B
Thank
you
additional
questions:
okay,
okay,
seeing
no
additional
questions;
let's
go
to
those
who
are
in
support
anyone
here
in
the
room
so
broadcast.
Let's
go
to
the
phones,
support.
K
It's
bar
richardson
for
the
record.
I
just
want
to
thank
committee
for
allowing
us
to
bring
this
forward
and
to
add
these
consumer
protections
for
the
guaranty
association
and
for
those
who
might
find
themselves
at
the
other
end
of
a
insolvent
insurer
situation.
So
thank
you
again.
B
K
Thank
you,
chairman
spearman,
and
vice
chair,
neil
and
members
of
the
committee,
and
for
the
record.
My
name
is
barbara
richardson
and
the
commissioner
of
insurance
for
the
state
of
nevada-
and
I
do
want
to
thank
you
again
for
allowing
me
to
present
the
division's
second
bill,
which
is
assembly
bill
18..
K
This
bill
particular
is
a
focus
bill
that
focuses
on
two
areas.
The
first
is
to
provide
nevada's
automobile
insurance,
consumers,
additional
choices
regarding
their
limits
of
uninsured
and
underinsured
motorist
coverage,
and
the
second
is
to
help
ensure
that
nevada's,
renewed
or
renewal
with
alter-term
statutory
language
cannot
limit
potential
policy
improvements
for
insurance
consumers.
K
The
following
is
a
brief
overview
of
the
changes
being
proposed
by
this
bill
and
then
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
have
so
section.
One
was
deleted
by
amendment
section.
Two
changes
the
language
related
to
when
an
issuer
must
give
at
least
30
days
notice
to
an
insurer
prior
to
renewing
a
policy
on
different
terms,
including
different
rates,
to
include
a
list
of
exceptions
to
this
notice
requirement
where
those
changes
at
renewal
are
clearly
consumer
friendly.
K
The
proposed
changes
also
replace
different
terms
of
rates
with
change
in
policy
or
coverage
to
be
less
ambiguous.
The
changes
to
which
the
30
days
notice
for
a
change
in
policy
or
coverage
would
not
apply
would
consist
of
a
decrease
in
the
amount
of
total
premium
charged
a
change
in
the
effective
expiration
dates
of
the
policy.
If
the
duration
of
the
renewed
policy
remains
the
same
and
changes
in
one
or
more
conditions
of
the
policy
that
are
intended
to
provide
coverage
more
favorable
to
the
insured.
K
An
example
of
these
types
of
changes
would
be
an
automobile
insurer
choosing
to
include
towing
and
road
service
coverage
or
home
insurer,
including
theft,
identity
theft
coverage
at
renewal
for
no
extra
cost
or
premium
to
the
insured.
Under
the
current
statutory
language,
insurers
can
be
prohibited
from
making
those
types
of
policy
improvements
or
providing
a
rate
decrease
if
they
do
not
provide
the
consumers.
A
30-day
notice
prior
to
their
policy
renewals,
so
section
3
addresses
a
different
topic.
K
It
provides
additional
options
to
the
nevada's
insurance
consumers
regarding
uninsured
and
underinsured
motors
coverage
in
a
policy
of
automobile
insurance
under
the
current
nevada
law,
insurers
are
only
allowed
to
offer
consumers
uninsured
and
underinsured
limits
in
amounts
not
less
than
the
state's
minimum
limits
for
liability
insurance
for
bodily
injury
and
not
more
than
the
amount
of
coverage
for
bodily
injury
liability
purchased
by
that
consumer
nevada's.
Current
minimum
limits
for
bodily
insured
injury
liability
coverage
is
twenty
five
thousand
per
person
and
fifty
thousand
per
occurrence.
K
The
language
in
section
three
provides
consumers
the
option
to
offer
limits
of
uninsured
underinsured
that
exceed
the
bodily
injury
liability
limits
in
a
policy
for
an
example.
Con
policy
holders,
though,
and
those
insurers
that
choose
to
make
this
option
available.
This
change
provides
nevada
consumers,
the
ability
to
tailor
their
coverage
to
their
actual
needs
for
protection
versus
the
current
limitation
of
uninsured
underinsured,
which
cannot
exceed
the
limits
of
their
bodily
injury
liability.
K
So
if
you're
at
fault
or
and
if
you're,
an
at
fault
in
in
a
car
accident
that
happens
to
injure
someone.
Finally,
injury
liability
coverage
pays
for
the
other
driver
and
their
passengers.
Medical
expenses
lost
wages,
legal
fees,
funeral
costs
and
pain
and
suffering,
but
a
result
of
these
injuries
in
evaluating
personal
exposures
and
adequate
limits
of
bodily
injury
liability
coverage.
Consumers
may
want
to
consider
the
amount
of
their
assets
and
net
worth
that
would
be
exposed
if
they
were
legally
liable
for
injuries
caused
by
an
accident.
K
Uninsured
and
underinsured
motorist
coverage
pays
for
medical
bills
lost
wages.
If
you
cannot
work
because
the
car
accident
pain
and
suffering
compensation
and
funeral
expenses,
when
you
are
injured
by
a
vehicle
whose
driver
doesn't
carry
liability,
car
insurance
or
doesn't
have
enough
liability
insurance
to
cover
the
value
of
your
injuries.
When
insurers
consider
the
amount
of
the
underinsured
and
uninsured
coverage
they
should
carry,
consideration
might
be
given
to
the
amount
of
their
available
liquid
assets
like,
for
example,
do
they
carry
robust
medical
insurance
to
cover
their
medical
bills?
K
Do
they
have
liability
insurance
to
replace
their
income
in
the
event
of
an
accident,
and
there's
always
the
possibility
an
accident
could
make
them
partially
or
permanently
disabled?
The
answer
these
to
these
questions
may
provide
a
need
for
the
under
insured
or
un
uninsured
motor
coverage,
which
might
be
higher
than
the
liability
insurance
com.
Consumers
feel
that
they
need
so.
The
proposed
change
in
sections
three
are
designed
to
provide
the
consumer
with
choice,
to
make
the
coverage
selections
that
are
right
for
their
individual
circumstances.
K
So
that's
the
end
of
my
presentation
and
I
stand
for
any
questions.
A
I
Okay,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
As
I
went
through
this,
this
isn't
my
area
of
expertise.
I
always
had
someone
else
in
the
office
when
we
were
doing
pi
cases
that
handled
this
stuff.
It
seems
to
make
sense
to
me
to
the
extent
I
understand
it.
I
I
I
but
no
I
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
I
suppose
as
to
how
the
the
insureds
will
fully
understand
and
be
able
to
absorb
this
and
make
personal
decisions,
but
that's
really
not
on
the
bill,
and
I
say
that
because
so
frequently
they
don't
understand
what
they
purchase
anyway,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
that
we're
gonna
be
making
it
any
clearer
to
them.
But
I
I
generally
supportive
of
of
the
bill
to
the
extent
that
it
makes
sense
to
me.
I
No,
the
consumers
generally,
in
my
experience
at
least
don't
get
into
the
weeds
they
they.
So
many
of
them
don't
even
know
what
uninsured
and
underinsured
motorist
coverage
is,
let
alone
that
they
have
it,
and
so.
B
Anyone
else,
so
I
guess
I'd,
do
a
follow-up
on
what
senator
pickett
asked
and
I
think,
painting
with
a
broad
spectrum
is
correct.
This
is
something
I've
always
wanted
to
ask.
So
please
indulge
me:
is
there
any
way
to
make
the
language
more
ordinary
person
friendly?
B
K
So
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record
and
I
would
love
to
say
that
yes,
it'd,
be
really
easy
to
do
that.
However,
the
insurance
carriers
are
constantly
being
sued.
So
there
is
a
there's,
a
concern
from
on
their
part
of
trying
to
make
sure
the
policies
when
drafted,
have
the
legal
protections
in
the
legal
framework,
so
that
there's
not
confusion
when
they
actually
have
to
step
into
a
courtroom.
I
know
that's
not
a
great
answer.
K
We
have,
at
the
national
level,
been
really
looking
at
trying
to
make
policy
language
clear
for
consumers
and
to
try
to
take
as
many
steps
as
we
can
to
try
to
use
plain
language,
especially
in
the
policies,
because
I
agree
it's
it's
quite
arduous
and
you
know
we're
making
strides,
but
it's
it's
not
always
as
easy
as
one
would
hope
to
try
to
turn
a
contract
into
plain
english.
B
I
think
you
said
intentional,
so,
okay,
we'll
go
with
that.
Any
no
other
question
senator
pickett.
I
Madam
chair,
if
I
could
just
add
to
that,
I
want
to
say
about
10
or
15
years
ago.
There
was
a
big
push
at
the
national
level
to
simplify
the
language
and,
as
the
administrators
just
mentioned,
that
it's
really
driven
by
litigation
and
the
need
for
very
specific
terms,
so
that
you
know
everybody's
clear
about
how
it
goes.
I
So,
while
these
policies
used
to
be
thick
with
really
arcane
legalese,
they
have
been
simplified
substantially
over
the
years,
but
we
can't
get
away
from
litigators
who
will
slice
and
dice
every
single
word
with
the
intention
of
getting
a
dollar
out
of
it.
So
they
they're,
they're
kind
of
stuck
but
to
their
credit.
They've
come
a
long
way
in
the
last
10
or
so
years.
B
Thank
you
any
other
questions,
all
righty,
so
anyone
in
the
room,
no
okay,
so
broadcast.
Let's
go
to
the
phones,
those
who
are
in
support.
15
minutes
two
minutes.
Each
assembly
bill
18.
D
B
Thank
you.
I
can
only
conclude
that
maybe
our
conversation
has
been
as
confusing
as
the
documents
the
consumers
read
either
that
or
they
just
have
no
interest
in
insurance,
but
I
do,
I
think,
it's
important
just
a
little
joke,
commissioner,
you
have
anything
to
say
any
closing
remarks.
K
B
Okay,
so
now
we
will
go
to
we'll
close
the
hearing
on
assembly,
bill
18
and
we'll
open
a
hearing
on
assembly
bill
45
and
who
are
the
presenters.
K
Oh,
thank
you
senator
spearman
vice
chair
neil
members
of
committee.
Please
allow
me
to
present
the
last
division
of
insurance,
three
bills
for
legislative
session.
This
is
barbara
richardson,
the
insurance
commissioner
for
the
record
and
I'm
presenting
assembly
bill
45
as
most
of
you
who
have
been
around
for
any
time.
You'll
recognize
this
as
our
larger
omnibus
bill.
So
it
covers
a
great
deal
of
time
and
space
throughout
the
entire
set
of
chapters
that
we
have
under
title
57,
and
I
will
try
to
try
to
be
slow.
K
I
tend
to
chat
fast
so,
but
to
make
sure
that
each
section
is
treated
separately
because
you'll
see
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
coordination
in
this
type
of
bill.
It
really
is
trying
to
hit
a
lot
of
different
subjects.
K
K
Okay,
seeing
none
sections
1
through
2
6
46,
through
53
76,
through
77
80
through
85,
were
deleted
by
amendment
section.
3
is
intended
to
consolidate
licensing
bond
requirements
are
under
nrs
679b
so
that
all
title
57
licenses
that
are
already
required
by
statute
to
carry
a
surety
bond
in
favor
of
the
state
of
nevada,
as
the
condition
of
holding
their
license,
will
have
uniform
surety
bond
requirements.
K
Currently,
the
bond
requirements
vary
by
license
type,
which
creates
challenges
and
inefficiencies
in
regulating
these
license.
It
also
causes
surety
to
develop
several
bond
forms
to
meet
the
various
license
or,
and
language
stats
in
the
statutory
requirements
in
title
57.
K
So
these
changes
will
allow
for
simplified
license.
Maintenance
and
enforcement.
Moving
forward
will
make
bond
requirements
easier
to
understand
for
the
division's
licensees,
and
I
want
to
emphasize
that
section.
3
only
applies
to
licensees
where
the
existing
statutes
require
a
surety
bond
as
a
condition
for
holding
that
license.
It
does
not
create
a
new
bond
requirement,
so
section
3.2
allows
our
commission
to
set
a
time
frame
for
when
provider
form
letter.
Denials
must
be
submitted
by
health
carers
to
try
and
consolidate
submissions.
K
We
have
been
getting
them
on
a
daily
basis,
but
then,
when
we
actually
ran
reports,
we
were
running
them
on
a
quarterly
basis,
so
we're
trying
to
make
it
easier
for
the
carriers
to
submit
them
on
a
quarterly
basis
in
a
report
form.
So
they
don't
have
to
send
us
notifications
every
day
because
it
was
not
providing
any
benefit
for
either
the
carriers
of
the
consumers.
K
Section
3.5
through
section
4
and
sections
13.5
and
20.5
create
a
uniformity
for
service
of
process
in
title
57
and
eliminates
the
requirement
that
the
serving
party
physically
leave
two
copies
of
the
serving
papers.
They
also
clarify
that
service
may
be
made
by
actually
leaving
their
nose
with
the
division
and
provides
further
clarification
on
the
process
that
the
division
must
take
once
the
service
has
been
made.
K
These
new
processes
are
to
encourage
the
use
of
electronic
means
whenever
practical
sections,
5
14,
51,
56,
72
and
73,
remove
the
fee
language
from
the
various
licensing
chapters
and
add
references
to
nrs
680b
to
consolidate
all
licensing
fees
under
fees
and
taxes
under
the
fees
and
taxes
chapter.
This
allows
for
greater
ease
of
reference
reference
for
the
regulators
and
the
licensees.
K
K
These
changes
are
necessitated
by
the
federal
preemption
dates
that
were
included
in
the
bilateral
agreement
between
the
united
states
of
america
and
the
european
union
on
prudential
measures
regarding
insurance
and
reinsurance,
and
it's
commonly
known
as
the
covered
agreement,
and
it
was
signed
by
the
united
states,
the
european
union
and
great
britain.
This
new
model
language
is
required
for
the
naic
accreditation
for
all
states
in
2022.
K
State
insurance
regulators
have
historically
required
non-us
reinsurers
to
hold
100
percent
collateral
within
the
united
states
for
the
risk
that
they
assume
from
u
s
insurers.
So
the
credit
for
reinsurance
act
primarily
concerns
the
elimination
of
additional
collateral
requirements
for
reinsurers
domiciled
in
the
european
union
and
the
uk,
provided
certain
regulatory
criteria
are
met.
It
also
provides
for
a
qualified
jurisdiction
allowance
to
obtain
similar
treatment
for
reinsurance
for
reinsurers
domiciled
in
qualified
jurisdictions
to
obtain
a
similar
treatment
as
those
jurisdictions
subject
to
a
covered
agreement.
K
Those
foreign
countries
must
provide
the
same
treatment
and
recognition
afforded
by
the
eu
countries
to
the
united
states
based
reinsurers,
as
they
would
receive
under
the
covered
agreement.
The
language
includes
the
requirement
that
a
juris
qualified
jurisdiction
must
agree
to
recognize
the
state's
approach
to
group
supervision,
including
group
capital.
K
K
section
8
adds
a
reference
to
nrs
682,
a
179
which
provides
the
terms
under
which
a
mortgage
on
real
estate
qualifies
as
an
equity
interest
in
relation
to
rated
credit
instruments.
This
reference
brings
the
statute
up
to
date
with
the
accreditation
standards
and
the
latest
model
language
of
the
national
association
of
insurance
commissioners.
K
So
another
long
list,
so
sections
9,
13,
15,
16,
19,
20,
38,
40,
41,
70,
73
and
75
update
license
renewal
language,
so
the
expiration
occurs
on
the
last
day
of
the
month
in
which
the
license
was
issued.
So
currently,
renewed
provisions
vary
across
the
license
type,
and
this
change
will
simplify
requirements
for
the
licensees,
especially
those
who
hold
multiple
licenses
or
are
licensed
across
several
jurisdictions.
K
K
Section.
12
establishes
clear
renewal
requirements
for
managing
general
agents.
The
current
licensing
provisions
for
managing
general
agent
does
not
address
license
renewals,
so
if
a
licensee
does
not
have
the
ability
to
reinstate
his
license
and
the
renewal
payment
is
late,
they
lose
their
license
and
we
were
trying
to
stop
that
in
here.
K
In
a
couple,
other
sections,
so
section
12,
adds
the
language
that
applies
to
most
licenses
under
title
57,
which
allows
for
reinstatement
of
a
license
within
30
days
after
the
renewal
date
was
a
penalty
of
50
of
the
renewal
fee
and
which,
for
this
license
type,
would
be
92
dollars.
As
a
penalty,
section
15
and
54
established
late
renewal
provisions
for
insurance
consultant
and
escrow
officer
licenses.
Respectfully.
K
These
sections
also
update
the
expiration
date
of
both
licenses.
To
the
last
day
of
the
month.
A
renewal
is
considered
late.
When
a
request
for
renewal
is
received
within
the
30
days
following
expiration.
It
is
considered
a
reinstatement
when
requested
between
30
and
365
days
after
expiration.
This
section
also
clarifies
that
escrow
officer
license
re
expires,
if
not
renewed
within
30
days
of
the
renewal
date.
K
I
would
note
that
the
divisions
fee
statutes
do
provide
for
the
return
of
erroneously
collected
fees
under
nrs
680b
120..
So
there
is
an
allowance
if
the
division
actually
collects
fees
and
error
to
provide
them
as
a
refund.
K
So
section
22
through
35
provides
rules
for
stop-loss
insurance,
which
provides
excess
loss
coverage
for
self-funded
health
plans.
Section
35
relates
to
a
type
of
stop-loss
policy
for
health
care
providers
who
insure
against
loss
of
income
through
the
network
through
their
network
contacts
or
contracts.
Sorry
with
payers,
currently
nevada
statutes
do
not
explicitly
allow
for
stop-loss
insurance
cover
coverage
and
the
related
rules
are
instead
contained
with
the
nevada
administrative
code.
K
So
the
reason
we're
bringing
this
forward
is
nevada's,
starting
to
see
self-funded
health
plans
sold
to
groups
with
as
low
as
two
employees
through
an
arrangement
known
as
level
funded
plans,
because
these
plans
can
underwrite
and
exclude
employees
with
pre-existing
conditions
and
are
not
required
to
include
all
the
aca
essential
health
benefits
and
they
pay
greatly
reduced
insurance
premium
taxes
states.
They
were
able
to
provide
a
less
expensive
alternative
to
nevada's
small
employers.
K
Sections
56.1
and
56
are
through
sorry,
56.55
codifies
the
naic
model
holding
company
system
regulatory
act.
These
sections
are
intended
to
provide
u.s
solvency
regulators
with
an
additional
analytical
tool
for
conducting
group-wide
supervision
in
light
of
the
new
requirements
under
the
covered
agreement.
K
These
sections
provide
key
financial
information
on
an
insurance
group
that
assists
regulators
in
understanding
the
financial
condition
of
non-insurance
entities
within
those
groups
and
information
that
assists
in
understanding
whether
or
not
what
degree
insurance
companies
may
be
supporting
the
operation
of
non-insurance
entities.
Adoption
will
further
aid.
The
u.s
insurers
operating
in
the
eu
and
the
uk
section
57
requires
an
insurer
or
insurance
group
to
annually
file
any
amendments
to
the
previous
year's
corporate
governance,
annual
disclosure
or
to
expressly
state
that
no
changes
were
made.
K
It
clarifies
the
differing
tax
and
filing
requirements
apply
once
the
certificate
of
a
dormancy
is
issued
and
lasts
until
the
certificate
expires
or
is
revoked,
and
it
makes
clear
that
upon
expiration
of
the
certificate
of
dormancy,
which
is
they
have
up
to
five
years,
they
have,
they
must
be
in
compliance
with
all
the
provisions
of
nrs
694c
that
are
applicable
to
any
company
with
an
active
certificate
of
authority.
K
Section
59
allows
captives
to
use
federally
charted
credit
unions
in
the
same
manner
as
federally
chartered
banks
and
for
the
division
to
perform
periodic
reviews
of
captive
managers
qualifications
and
to
be
able
to
disqualify
those
that
would
be
considered
unsuitable
under
nac679b.039
through
the
commissioner's
authority
in
nrs679b.125,
section
63
through
excuse
me,
61-63
clarify
requirements
related
to
confidentiality
of
information
submitted
in
connection
with
a
health
rate
filing
which
will
help
create
uniformity
through
all
the
health
plans
and
carriers.
Regarding
the
provisions
of
the
nrs,
they
are
subject
to
section
66
and
65.
K
Sorry,
65
and
66
clarify
that
risk
retention
groups
are
subject
to
registration
and
renewal
in
nevada
and
to
a
potential
determination
of
hazardous
financial
condition.
Pursuant
to
nrs
688.205
section
67-69
make
changes
to
the
financial
regulation
of
prepaid,
limited
health
service
organizations
and
the
provisions
make
these
prepaid.
Lumina
health
service
organizations,
subject
to
the
defined
limit
of
investment
and
financial
examination
provisions
otherwise
applicable
to
nevada,
domiciled
life
and
health
insurers.
K
So
section
86
provides
the
repeal
of
nrs
692a,
1043
and
nrs695f.180.
These
sections
are
no
longer
needed,
since
the
requirements
for
bonding
and
investment
respectively
are
being
updated
as
part
of
this
legislature
or
this
legislation.
Sorry
60,
section,
60
or
87
wow,
section
87,
provides
the
effective
dates
of
the
sections
within
this
bill.
So
this
concludes
my
introduction
of
ab45.
K
I
would
say
that
I
do
understand
that
there
was
an
amendment
submitted
last
night
and
the
division
has
begun
its
review
of
the
language
of
the
amendment
and
does
have
some
grave
concerns.
The
amendment
as
proposed
appears
to
remove
solvency
protections.
This
is
concerning
to
the
division,
because
the
self-insured
group
market,
on
which
the
amendment
concerns
only
has
eight
groups
in
it.
So
it's
a
very
small
non-competitive
market.
K
There
are
very
high
confidentiality
provisions
and
protections
in
the
statutes
that
do
not
allow
the
division
to
provide
much
information,
except
to
say
that
not
all
of
the
market
members
are
financially
stable.
Removing
the
protections
in
the
statute
would
potentially
lead
to
their
insolvency
and,
given
the
other
market,
players
are
required
to
step
in
to
support
any
insolvent
group.
This
financial
fragility
could
take
down
the
entire
market.
K
There
is
language
currently
in
the
statute
that
allows
a
self-insured
group
to
work
with
the
division
confidentially
to
help
bring
them
back
into
a
solvent
position
and
then
the
other
concern
for
that
particular
amendment.
That
we
noted
was
that
the
removal
of
the
audit
section
is
directly
against
the
state's
general
position
that
there
are
concerns
of
employee
misclassification
and
the
reason
I
note
this
is.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Don't
want
to
disappoint
you
this
morning
and
I'll
ask
some
questions
right
out
of
the
gates.
One
of
the
first
things
that
I
noticed
as
I
reviewed
the
bill
was
that-
and
this
kind
of
goes
to
my
experience
on
the
sunset
subcommittee,
where
one
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
there
is
to
reduce
barriers
to
entry.
I
You
know
approve
licensing
only
when
it's
really
necessary
or
justified,
and
I
noticed
I'm
on
page
13
of
the
bill,
subsection
38
we're
starting
to
license
motor
clubs
and
so,
of
course,
aaa
came
to
mind
they're
an
insurance
company
as
well
as
a
motor
club.
So
I
can
see
that
they're
probably
already
deeply
involved
with
the
department
of
insurance,
but
why?
Why
are
we
licensing
motor
clubs?
Aren't
these
just
organizations
that
are
established
to
help
each
other?
You
know
help
the
members
in
their
motoring
lives,
but
they're
not
offering
insurance
per
se.
Are
they.
K
This
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
Actually,
we've
been
licensing
motor
clubs
for
a
while
now,
and
it
specifically
has
to
do
with
the
services
they
provide,
which
which
sections
of
it
fall
into
insurance
products.
There
is
a
risk
transfer
and
that
turns
them
into
insurance
entities
of
some
type.
K
We
don't
have
very
many
of
them
in
the
state,
there's
not
a
lot
of
requirements
on
them
and
they're.
Basically,
what
we
were
trying
to
do
with
the
sections
that
we
were
talking
about
is
to
just
put
them
in
the
same
category
as
the
other
licensees,
so
that
everything
can
be
smoothly
handled
via
systems,
and
we
don't
have
to
actually
sort
of
call
them
out
as
separate
entities
that
we
would
be
reviewing
either
extraordinarily
closely
or
with
any
kind
of
extra
scrutiny.
I
Right,
I
I'm
grateful
for
that.
I
just
I
noticed
that
they're
licensing,
I
mean
it's
in
blue,
so
I
assume
that
because
this
is
new
language,
we're
adding
a
licensing
fee
that
we
didn't
have
before,
but
maybe
it's
new
to
this
section
and
you
can
address
that.
But
it's
also
pretty
high.
I
I
mean
it's
500
for
filing
an
application
and
the
only
ones
as
I
go
through
that
are
higher
are
for
full-on
insurance
companies
and
while
there
may
be
a
transfer
of
risk,
I
don't
think
it's
anywhere
near
the
kinds
of
risks
that
we're
talking
about
with
the
full-on
insurance
companies.
So
maybe
you
can
explain
number
one.
Why
are
we
charging
so
much
and
and
number
two
why
we
think
that
the
types
of
transfer
of
risks
that
you're
describing
justify
licensure
and
and
oversight
not
that
they
don't?
I
just
don't
understand
why.
K
It's
barbara
richardson
for
the
record,
and
I
appreciate
the
question.
Senator
pickard
and
I
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
you're
correct
in
saying
at
the
very
beginning
is
that
this
was
just
a
move
from
the
statute
specifically
having
to
do
with
motor
clubs
into
the
fees
and
taxes
section.
K
So
we
weren't
actually
changing
anything,
so
those
fees
were
determined
when
the
motor
club,
inter
companies
were
first
put
under
the
title,
57
oversight
and
that's
not
really
something
that
we
would
normally
opine
on
unless
it
was
so
high
or
so
low,
and
the
one
thing
that
we
do
look
at
with
a
motor
club.
K
Just
like
we
do
look
at
like
premium.
There's
there's
these
small
type
of
companies
there
that
are
actually
companies,
they're,
not
a
person,
so
a
person's
license
fee
is
always
much
lower
than
a
company
type.
So
motor
clubs
are
considered
a
company
type,
even
though
they're,
not
company
insurers,
so,
for
example,
service
contract
providers,
which
is
a
company,
so
there
they
have
a.
They
initially
had
a
1000.
K
It's
now
two
thousand
for
a
two
year
license
so
they're
put
in
that
type
of
oversight
and
fee
structure.
I
All
right,
thank
you
for
that.
My
last
question
has
to
do
with
the
self-insureds,
particularly
the
small
insurers
that
you
referenced
in
your
presentation
and
where
these
are
typically
groups.
Small
groups
put
together
for
the
purpose
of
trying
to
provide
insurance
for
their
employees
at
a
lower
cost
than
what
they
can
get
on
the
open
market.
I
They
have
the
resources
to
do
it,
but
they're
looking
for
ways
of
of
saving
their
their
employees
money.
I
didn't
realize
that
they
could
be
as
small
as
two
but,
of
course,
that
makes
some
sense
because
we
don't
limit
their
minimum
size,
but
my
understanding
of
these-
and
it's
only
tangential,
but
it's
that
they
have
put
together
a
plan
that
meets
their
specific
needs,
and
so
they
may
forego
certain
coverage
require
or
certain
coverages.
I
It's
done
in
a
way
that
meets
their
needs
and
so
by
adding
additional
requirements.
That
would
be
similar
to
the
larger
plans.
Don't
we
end
up
pricing
them
kind
of
out
of
their
intent,
which
is
to
save
money
on
a
voluntary
basis
on
their
own,
because
my
understanding
is,
they
typically
do
so
in
a
cooperative
collaborative
method
where
it's
not
something
that
they
force
upon
their
employees
and,
by
the
same
token,
their
employees
can
go
out
on
the
open
market
onto
the
exchange
and
get
a
plan
if
they
don't
like
what
their
employer
is
giving.
I
K
This
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record,
and
I
I
appreciate
the
chance
to
sort
of
clarify.
So
the
self-funded
plans
that
that
we're
talking
about
in
this
particular
section
are
for
the
level
funded
plans,
we're
not
actually
adding
any
requirements
to
them.
K
All
we're
doing
is
pulling
them
up
from
a
sort
of
lost
spot
in
the
regulations
to
a
full-blown
potential
product
in
the
statutes,
and
the
reason
why
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
they
were
out
there
and
of
note
is
because
there
are
opportunities
for
using
these
type
of
self-funded
plans,
but
so
far
they've
been
flying
under
the
radar
and
what
we're
concerned
about
is
the
federal
department
of
labor
are
starting
to
also
pay
attention
to
them,
and
the
real
concern
for
us
is
that
we
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
we're
not
stepping
in
to
do
any
alteration
or
require
them
to
do
more
than
they're
doing.
K
We
want
to
make
sure
that
people
aren't
using
them
to
merely
get
out
from
underneath
the
affordable
care
act
requirements,
because
what
ends
up
happening
is
if
something,
if
a
larger
claim
comes
along,
then
they
move
into
the
fully
funded
commercial
market,
and
then
the
fully
funded
commercial
market
turns
into
a
high
risk
pool.
So
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
sort
of
give
them
some
legs
to
stand
on
much
like
the
association
health
plans,
which
is
still
another
court,
proceeding
that's
happening
on
the
federal
level,
but
that
was
really.
I
All
right,
thank
you
for
that.
I
was
under
the
impression
that
when
we
brought
them
up
into
the
full-fledged
plan
environment,
the
requirements
of
the
aca
would
then
apply
to
them
and
they
would
have
to
have
those
minimum
coverages.
But
since
that's
not
the
case,
I'm
satisfied.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
H
Thank
you,
man.
I'm
sure.
I
appreciate
that
my
question
was
also
dealing
with
the
self-insured
groups.
I've
worked
with
conservation
districts
that
have
actually
utilized
a
self-insured
group,
so
I
see
their
value.
I
understand
your
concern
about
making
sure
that
they're
solvent,
but
in
that
respect
I
was
saying
within
the
amendment
there
were
kind
of
two
parts
of
it
the
assessment
and
then
the
audits
are
you
objectional
to
both
parts
or
just
the
one?
It's
kind
of
a
question.
K
So
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record
and,
unfortunately
yeah.
We
are
opposed
to
both
of
them,
mainly,
for
example,
with
the
audits.
The
reason
why
we're
concerned
is
the
audits
actually
help
sort
of
support
to
make
sure
that
misclassification
isn't
happening
and
that
the
members
themselves
are
protected
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
were
seeing
is
there
was
a
request
to
have
a
an
actuary
determine
the
rates
which
I
normally
would
say.
That's
fantastic
and
you
know
having
a
qualified
actuary
would
be
great.
K
The
problem
is,
there
are
levels
of
qualified
actuaries
and
there's
qualified
actuaries
that
can
do
property
casualty
versus
those
who
can
do
health
and
they
are
different
and
we're
talking
workers
comp.
So
that's
another
additional
issue
and
the
companies
might
find
themselves
right
back
in
the
space
where
they
don't
actually
have.
K
I
mean
because
it's
very
expensive
to
get
a
qualified
actuary
in
the
particular
market
that
you're
talking
about
and
we
do
have
advisory
organizations
that
that
are
under
the
state,
which
actually
are
licensed
to
actually
give
information
to
groups
like
the
self-insured
groups.
So
that
was
a
con
concern
of
ours.
Under
the
audits
and
then
as
far
as
the
first
part,
it
really
goes
back
to
the
solvency
protections.
K
There
are
I,
if
you
I
don't
probably
have
time
to
do
this,
but
if
you
read
the
sections
closely
there's
an
ability
for
the
self-insured
groups
which
are
like,
I
said
mostly
workers,
comp
groups
to
work
with
a
division
to
get
amendments
or
some
kind
of
approval
to
work
within
their
current
system,
and
we
actually
have
been
talking
to
these
guys
since
the
late
since
late
2020
and
our
concern
is
that,
since
you
know
we're
trying
to
make
sure
they
understand
to
read
the
statutes
literally,
which
includes
the
come.
K
If
you're
seeing
you've
got
a
problem,
please
come
to
us
and
talk
to
us
and
we
will
work
with
you
and
that
we
can
give
you
some
kind
of
support
through
this.
But
again
you
know
our
concern
is.
Is
we
can't
really
come
out
and
say
anything
because
the
confidentiality
protections
are
so
high.
H
K
Yeah,
so
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
We
would
be
we.
We
would
like
to
work
with
them
honestly,
but
we
do
have
to
work
with
them,
one
by
one.
We
work
with
the
boards
so
that
we
give
them
a
clear
picture
of
where
they're
standing
right
now
and
then
help
them.
Try
to
figure
out
a
plan
going
forward.
K
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
had
questions
on
section
six,
so
I
read
the
backup,
so
I'm
probably
I'm
gonna
be
all
over
the
place,
but
I'm
kind
of
work
backwards.
So
I
get
generally,
why
section?
Six
is
there,
but
what
I
was
trying
to
understand
is,
I
guess,
under
the
group
capital
language
where
it
says
that
you're
recognizing
the
united
states.
This
is
on
section
because
there's
several
sections,
so
this
is
6.14.
A
I
wanted
to
understand
how
the
group
capital
piece
works.
I
I
didn't.
I
wasn't
sure
if
the
background
document
that
you
put
in
the
record,
which
was
the
it
was
the
group
capital
calculation
piece
applied
to
this,
to
try
to
get
an
understanding,
because
I
guess
the
thing
that
I'm
stuck
on
is
the
you
know
the
dom
the
domicile
of
the
entities
that
we're
talking
about
and
how.
A
I
guess
it's
being
explained
that
the
calculation
of
the
risk
has
to
be
at
the
level
of
the
entire
group.
But
what
I'm
not
clear
on
is
the
application
of
this
language,
which
seems
to
apply
not
to
just
in-state
insurers,
but
also
eu
or
other
jurisdictions,
and
so-
and
I
don't
know
if
I'm
correct,
but
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
understand
it.
Can
you
help
me.
K
Certainly,
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
I
hope
I
can
I
am
it.
Is
it's
a
it's?
As
you
said,
it's
it's
actually
pretty
convoluted,
but
basically
what
was
happening
pre
this
covered
agreement
was
that
that
companies
I
mean
very
large
companies
who
span
across
the
united
states,
who
also
expand
into
the
european
union
also
span
into
to
the
asian
market
and
to
the
southern
south
american
market.
They
were
having
to
hold
100
collateral
in
each
one
of
these
jurisdictions,
which
means
money
just
sitting
there.
K
So
what
had
happened
originally
with
the
united
states
commissioners?
Is
they
worked
with
the
international
association
of
insurance
supervisors
and
through
several
of
the
other
national
worldwide
groups,
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
look
at,
for
example,
say,
state
farm
or
or
progressive,
who
may
be
everywhere
and,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
some
of
the
companies
themselves
have
more
money
and
products
outside
the
united
states,
but
they
seem
like
familiar
names
to
us.
K
So
the
idea
was
to
have
a
discussion
on
sort
of
trying
to
figure
out
what
group
capital
was,
and
so
they
developed
this
process
called
supervisory
colleges
where
all
the
group
supervisors,
or
in
our
case
group
commissioners,
would
come
together
to
meet
with
the
leadership
of
the
companies
who
had
this
worldwide
market
and
they
would
come
in
the
domiciliary
state
or
country
to
have
these
meetings
and
it'd
be
a
three-day
in-depth
financial
review
of
everything,
every
risk
sort
of
how
the
the
different
types
of
companies
and
affiliate
contracts
were
drafted
and
written
and
how
they
affected
each
other.
K
So
that's
the
group
capital
sort
of
idea
and
then
what
happened
was
in
order
to
really
make
these
agreements
be
jurisdictional
or
to
to
make
sure
that
you
could
actually
require
jurisdictionally
that,
for
example,
bermuda
act.
You
know
if
there
was
a
solvency
issue
with
a
portion
of
the
company
that
they
would
turn
over
any
additional
capital
that
they
may
be
holding
for
a
united
state
entity
that
might
be
going
down.
K
So,
in
order
to
have
all
that
happen,
the
united
states,
through
the
federal
insurance
office,
which
is
under
the
department
of
treasury,
signed
this
bilateral
agreement
between
the
united
states
and
you
know,
and
the
european-
and
it
just
so
happened
that
they
also
brought
in
the
uk,
because
there
was
that
the
big
issue
with
the
uk
pulling
out
of
it
out
of
great
britain
so
that
they
gathered
that
group
together,
so
that
that
was
that
was
easy
to
be
able
to
sort
of
make
those
deals
and
then
there's
a
series
of
oversight.
K
That's
also
done
on,
what's
known
as
qualified
jurisdictions,
for
example,
bermuda
is
a
qualified
jurisdiction
and
what
they
do
is,
since
they
can't
sign
this
bilateral
agreement.
They
can't
agree
jurisdictionally
to
be
members
of
this
sort
of
group,
and
this
is
all
covered
under
a
memorand,
a
multilateral
memorandum
of
understanding
that
covers
each
state
and
then
it
also
covers
the
qualified
jurisdictions.
K
So
the
group
capital
is
just
a
base
part
of
that
to
try
to
sort
of
set
the
stage
so
that
once
one
state
one
country
can't
say
I
want
more
from
you
than
this.
One
does
and
you're
only
going
to
protect
my
consumers
when,
in
fact
we're
talking
about
huge
conglomerates
that
that
should
be
protecting
all
the
policyholders
under
their
belt.
So
I
hope
that
helps.
A
It
it
did
help,
because
I
was
because
what
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
was
in
section
six
one
which
covers
several
sub-sections.
You
know
6.25
et
cetera.
I
know
that
the
the
idea
was
to
do
this
so
that
you
weren't
preempted
right
and
then,
but
what
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
was:
did
you
deviate
at
all?
Or
did
you
just
pluck
that's
what
it
looked
like?
A
Okay,
because
I
was
just
like
trying
to
find
out
what
what
were
the
differences
that
you
had,
because
what
I,
what
I
couldn't
figure
out
and
what
I
was
super
trying
to
understand,
is
when
we
talk
about.
You
know
like
the
standard
that
exists
when
you're
trying
to
in
these
huge
swaths
of
consumers
which
could
cross
borders.
A
I
was
trying
to
get
an
understanding
about
the
the
the
language
in
this
thing:
the
6.14
6.14
sub
b,
where
there
was
no
requirement
for
the
united
states
to
domicile
the
assuming
insurer
to
establish
or
maintain
a
local
presence,
and
so
so
immediately
right
when,
whenever
I
see
maintain
a
local
presence,
I
I
immediately
get
into
the
jurisdictional
piece
of
this
and
like
how
does
that
work
when,
when
you
adopt
this
and
and
and
there's
you
have
to
defend
an
issue-
and
I
understand
that
it's
a
multilateral
agreement,
because
I
was
reading
everything
that
you
know
you
put
in
the
record
and
then
went
beyond
that.
A
How
does
it
work
legally
like
for
your
example,
with
bermuda
right,
they're
considered
a
qualified
jurisdiction?
They
don't
necessarily
have
presence
so
then,
so
then,
how
do
you
division
of
insurance
deal
with
them
in
in
the
legal
framework
or
or
is
there
a
legal
framework
or
is
this
or
is
the
jurisdiction,
then
federal
and
then
you're
you're
trying
to
bring
yourself
under
the
dodd-frank
act?
Because
I
I
I'm
just
not
clear
on
the
the
legal
lines
of
how
you
move
between
entities
does
that
does
that
make
sense?
K
This
was
barbara
richardson
for
the
record
no,
and
I
appreciate
that
it
is
very
complicated,
and
this
actually
would
set
some
of
the
legal
parameters
to
make
us
then
fall
in
line
with
the
the
covered
agreement,
which
falls
on
maintenance
before
it
falls
under
the
federal
insurance
office
under
the
department
of
treasury.
K
So
if
there
is
pushback
even
under
the
qualified
jurisdictions
which
the
qualified
jurisdictions
are
required
at
this
point
to
provide
through
not
only
through
the
national
association
of
insurance
commissioners,
but
also
through
the
the
bank
of
international
settlements
and
the
iais
they're
required
to
actually
say
that
they
will
fall
under
the
jurisdiction.
K
So
they
have
to
agree
to
it
in
order
to
become
a
qualified
jurisdiction,
they
they
actually
have
to
submit
their
jurisdiction
to
follow
the
same
requirements
and
alliances
and
to
to
provide
the
same
rights
that
a
u.s
citizen
or
a
us
company
would
have
in
their
jurisdiction.
A
A
K
So
this
bar
richardson
for
the
record,
that's
going
to
be
whatever
the
domiciliary
country,
domiciliary
state.
So,
for
example,
on
supervisory
colleges
there
is.
There
is
a
determination,
that's
made
that
where
the
bulk
of
the
the
products
are
sold
or
where
the
business
is
sold,
that
is
considered
the
the
home
domiciliary
venue.
So
instead
of
a
company
hitting
every
united
states
every
state
in
the
united
states,
if
they
have
an
issue,
it's
the
same
thing
that
we
do
in
the
united
states.
K
If
there's
a
an
issue
with
a
company,
it
has
a
domiciliary
state
and
every
every
control,
every
sort
of
hit
on
the
solvency
issues.
Every
oversight
happens
at
the
domicilia
level
and
then
peels
out
to
the
to
the
other
groups
so
that
it
basically
saves
again.
K
We
go
back
to
saving
time
and
money
for
the
insurance
carriers,
thus
saving
time
and
money
for
the
consumers,
because
the
idea
is
that,
under
the
naic's
accreditation
process,
we
have
to
rely
on
the
underpinnings,
the
underlying
laws,
the
underlying
controls
that
the
financial
solvency
regulators
in
that
state
are
performing
on
the
companies
themselves.
So
this
actually
does
the
same
thing.
Only
on
a
national
or
excuse
me
a
worldwide
basis,
so
it
it
falls,
though,
under
the
you
come
to
that
agreement
through
these
supervisory
colleges
to
make
that
determination.
A
And
then
same
section,
because
I
because,
based
on
the
context
that
you've
given
you
know
like,
I
immediately
go
into
like
a
whole
different
span,
because
I
was
trying
to
understand
how
does
notice
work
right
because
immediately
I
get
into
like,
like
I
think
about
like
cases
like
there,
there
was
a
case
that
I
learned
in
law
school.
I
think
it
was
burger
king.
I
think
it
was
burger
king,
but
it
was
like
this
international
thing
about
this
tire
stem
blah
blah.
A
But
the
thing
is
that
the
notice
provision
that
comes
into
play
when
you're
dealing
in
international
jurisdictions.
I
I
I'm
trying
to
understand
how
you
know
what
legal,
what
law
does
a
person
go
to
in
order
to
then
be
call
fall
under
this
duly
notice
class
members?
And
what
can
they
expect
now
that
you've
adopted
this?
Really
it's
the
u.s
bilateral
agreement,
but
but
what
can
a
a
person
who's?
A
part
of
this?
A
I
guess
expect
to
be
the
notice
that
they
receive
in
regards
to
this
when
they're
dealing
with
liabilities
or
any
other
issues
that
they
have,
because,
because
section
6.6
says,
says
a
couple
of
things
right
so
you're
talking
about
duly
notice,
class
members
or
creditors
of
a
solvent
debtor,
and
then
it
also
throws
in
the
reorganization
or
restructuring
of
debt,
so
that
so
that
then
brings
us
into
that
bankruptcy
conversation
or
or
what
is
that?
I
don't
even
know
if,
like
you
have
chapter
11,
you
have
chapter
13.
A
How
does
that
work
in
the
international
framework
when
there
is
a
a
person,
wants
to
reorganize
their
debt
or
restructure
it
and
they're
in
this
bilateral
agreement,
and
I'm
just
going
to
throw
bermuda
back
out
there,
just
for
the
just,
for
I
was
gonna,
say
for
giggles
sake,
but
okay
I'll
stop
there
yeah.
K
That's
right
yeah,
so
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
So
if,
if
bermuda
happens
to
be
the
domiciliary
jurisdiction,
they
must
chat
with
and-
and
I
say,
chat
in
a
a
quietly
sort
of
confidential
way.
K
They
must
get
approval
from
the
other
regulators
for
certain
types
of
restructuring
and
the
whole
framework
is
based
on
making
sure
that
that
no
no
consumers,
which
is
the
ultimate
concern,
are
being
harmed
by
the
the
corporate
structure
or
corporate
changes
that
are
put
in
place
and
we
currently
happen
to
I
mean
there
is
there's
a
fight
right
now
going
on
with
a
particular
company
who
domiciled
in
a
in
a
territory
who
was
allowing
actions
that
the
other
states
in
the
united
states
wouldn't
allow.
K
A
K
So
barbara,
which
is
for
the
record,
it's
just
small
prepaid
policies.
It's
just
there
are.
There
are
specific
policies
that
people
want
to
buy
for
an
issue
like
cancer,
specifically
that
they
didn't
think
that
they
were
getting
enough
coverage.
There's
not
a
lot
of
them
on
the
market.
There's
not
a
lot
of
policies
on
the
market
anymore,
especially
since
the
aca
came
out,
but
every
once
in
a
while
folks
want
to
buy
additional
coverage
on
a
health
issue
that
they
might
have,
or
that
runs
in
their
families.
B
D
D
G
D
D
D
G
For
the
record,
my
name
is
jim
wadham.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
self-insured
group,
we
appear
in
opposition
only
because
we
have
an
amendment
to
discuss
and
I
apologize
because
I
think
this
bill
is
very
important
and
otherwise
support
it
strongly.
G
The
commissioner
has
addressed
in
part
the
amendment.
We
only
ask
the
opportunity
to
continue
to
discuss
with
her.
The
issue
are
the
self-insured
groups.
Essentially
it
comes.
This
amendment
comes
in
three
parts.
One
is
to
clarify
a
ruling
that
was
recently
made
dealing
with
self-insured,
I'm
sorry
standardized
standard,
industrial
classifications,
there's
some
language
that
makes
that
confusing,
and
we
would
like
to
see
that
removed.
G
G
In
no
way
do
we
want
to
restrict
the
commissioner's
power
authority
to
monitor
the
solvency,
and
the
solvency
standard
remains
unchanged,
but
we
had
an
opportunity
to
discuss
this
with
the
commissioner's
staff
yesterday
and
just
offered
this
amendment
as
a
placeholder
to
continue
those
discussions
appreciate
her
willingness
to
do
that
and
thank
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
at
least
put
this
proposal
on
the
record.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
You
have
any
closing
comments.
K
This
is
bob
richardson
for
the
records,
and
I
appreciate
it.
I
I
do
appreciate
that
we
did
have
a
chance
to
talk
to
mr
adams.
The
staff
did
yesterday.
I
would
say,
though,
that
one
of
the
things
that
is
trying
to
be
removed
is
the
term
standard
industrial
classification
coding
system,
and
this
is
one
of
the
situations
where
it
is
in
english.
K
It's
not
everything
in
the
statutes
in
english,
but
it
has
been
interpreted
to
mean
something
that
it's
not,
and
we
have
worked
with
the
industry
to
explain
to
them
that
the
standard
industrial
classification
coding
system
is
any
classification
system,
that's
standardized
under
under
the
statutes
and
falls
under
the
advisory
code,
so
by
removing
it
we're
not
actually
gaining
anything.
All
we
would
be
potentially
doing
is
somehow
acknowledging
that
that
meant
something
that
it
doesn't
mean.
So
it's
it's
just
unclear.
K
K
But
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
we
actually
have
the
opportunity
to
to
talk
to
them
about
you
know
where
they
fall,
and
you
know
what
their
actual
cash
flow
issues
are
in
their
tangible
net
worth
so
and,
like
I
said
there
are
opportunities
in
the
statute
as
currently
written
to
have
those
discussions
and
to
make
allowances
to
get
the
any
sig
self-insured
group
member
back
on
track
altering
the
statutes
themselves.
So
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
B
C
Mr
rosario
will
also
be
available
to
address
any
questions
you
may
have.
Ab51
concerns
the
board's
residential
recovery
fund,
which
was
established
in
1999
with
the
assistance
and
leadership
of
assemblywoman,
barbara
buckley,
funded
by
nevada
licensed
residential
contractors.
The
recovery
fund
provides
recourse
for
homeowners
who
are
unable
to
have
issues
resolved
by
their
contractor
during
construction.
C
C
Young
couples,
who
often
learned
difficult
less
lessons
as
they
renovated
their
first
home
and
respected
professionals
who
were
taken
advantage
of
these
stories,
help
exemplify
the
board's
public
safety
message
and
our
ability
to
assist
consumers
at
times
they
need
it.
The
most
as
of
march
31st
2021.
C
The
board
successfully
increased
the
award
amount
during
the
2019
legislative
session
from
thirty
five
thousand
dollars
to
forty
thousand
dollars
for
individual
claims
filed
and
the
aggregate
value
where
multiple
claims
are
filed
against
a
single
contractor
from
four
hundred
thousand
to
seven
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
or
twenty
percent
of
the
recovery
fund
balance.
Whichever
is
less.
C
Ab51
does
not
change
eligibility
for
the
recovery
fund.
It
simply
clarifies
eligible
eligibility
requirements
to
assist
the
committee
and
inform
the
consumers
when
considering
awards,
specifically
ab51
seeks
to
clarify
the
definition
of
single-family
residents,
while
also
affirming
the
recovery
fund
does
not
apply
to
owners
of
manufacturers,
homes
manufactured
homes,
as
those
residents
are
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
manufactured
housing
division
who
maintains
its
own
licensee
and
enforcement
authority.
C
We
are
also
increasing
the
penalty
against
contractors
who
failed
to
provide
notice
of
the
residential
recap
recovery
fund
to
residential
consumers
prior
to
work
being
performed.
This
provision
has
not
been
modified
since
the
inception
of
the
fund.
The
increased
administrative
penalty
intends
to
promote
greater
compliance
among
nevada
contractors,
who
are
responsible
for
upholding
the
laws
that
aim
to
protect
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
the
public.
C
C
Lastly,
we
want
to
clarify
the
recovery
fund's
ability
to
issue
an
award
relative
to
a
court-ordered
judgment
to
ensure
segregation
of
rights
stays
with
the
claimant
for
any
judgment
amount
that
exceeds
the
board's
forty
thousand
dollar
limit
at
this
time.
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
guestwine
to
walk
you
through
the
bill.
J
J
J
J
Another
highlight
is
section
4
of
ap51.
This
section
offers
a
change
to
the
recovery
fund's
subrogation
right
currently,
if
an
award
is
made
by
the
recovery
fund,
the
injured
person
assigns
all
rights
to
the
recovery
fund.
With
the
proposed
changed,
the
subrogation
right
is
limited
to
the
amount
of
the
recovery
fund
award.
J
J
Finally,
the
limit
of
the
subrogation
right
acts
as
a
deterrent
to
those
residential
contractors
that
would
use
the
recovery
fund
as
a
shield
from
their
misconduct.
The
final
substance
of
change
is
in
section
5
of
the
act.
The
current
statute
requires
residential
contractors
to
give
notice
to
homeowners
regarding
the
recovery
fund
rights.
J
A
C
A
J
Thank
you,
tim
guestwine,
responding
to
the
question
from
the
senator
a
tiny
home
at
this
time,
I'm
uncertain.
If
tiny
homes
are
governed
by
the
division
of
manufactured
housing,
in
which
case
they
would
fall
under
its
jurisdiction,
but
as
this
definition
is
written,
if
the
tiny
home
is
not
on
a
foundation,
it
would
not
qualify
for
recovery
fund
awards.
Again,
remember
recall:
most
of
these
tiny
homes
are
built,
off-site
and
transported
to
its
resting
place
and,
as
you
mentioned,
can
be
moved.
That
strikes
me
more
as
a
manufactured
home.
H
They
pursue
the
489
fund
and
that's
the
recovery
fund
that
they're
limited
to
that's,
where
they're
supposed
to
go
and
it's
based
on
who
does
the
work,
but
ab51
now
will
make
the
work
of
the
manufacturer
home
ineligible
for
the
actual
recovery
fund.
That
means
that
their
only
remedy,
then
would
be
the
manufactured
homeowners
damaged
by
the
defective
work
will
be
the
489
fund,
regardless
whether
the
contractor
did
the
work
or
not,
and
that
seems
problematic
to
me,
because
if
the
contractor
does
the
work,
even
if
it's
on
a
manufactured
home,
why
shouldn't
that
recovery?
H
J
So
by
definition
those
are
landlords
and
those
are
not
home.
Those
those
persons
would
be
ineligible
for
recovery
fund
on
two
accounts.
They
would
be
ineligible
under
these
standards
of
the
manufactured
home
and
they
would
be
ineligible
because
it
is
not
an
owner
occupied
dwelling.
The
owner
of
the
dwelling
is
renting
the
dwelling
to
a
tenant
and
the
recovery
fund
has
never
reached
down
to
protect
landlords
because
of
the
bus.
That's
a
protection
of
a
business
risk
that
the
landlord
has
the
ability
to
enjoy
other
avenues
and
other
resources
to
correct
problems.
H
I
appreciate
that,
if
I
could
pull
up
madam
chair,
I'm
still
concerned
because
again
what
remedies
exists
against
a
bad
contractor
because
they're
not
licensed
under
489.
So
how
do
you
go
after?
How
do
you
get
the
appropriate
person
to
pay
for
the
damages?
How
do
you
go
after
a
bad
contractor
in
that
situation,
if
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
go
after
the
contractor's
board,
resources
and
you're
only
limited
to
the
489,
because
again
the
contractor
isn't
licensed
under
489.
J
Tim
gasquet
for
the
contractor's
board
so
I'll
remind
everyone
that
the
recovery
fund
is
an
important
tool,
but
it's
not
an
exclusive
remedy.
So
a
person
who
is
armed
by
a
nevada
contractor
may
seek
other
avenues
for
redress.
Of
course,
civil
litigation
there
might
be
insurance
or
insurance
claims
are
possible.
There
is
the
nri
624
270
bond
that
may
offer
coverage
or
protections
in
some
circumstances,
so
there.
This
is
not
an
exclusive
remedy.
There's
an
opportunity
for
a
person.
Who's
been
harmed
to
go
to
many
different
avenues
and
seek
redress
for
the
injuries
caused.
H
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
just
had
a
question
to
try
to
follow
up
on
what
was
just
stated
so,
and
I
just
want
to
be
clear
around
the
exclusion
when
you
say
you
know
property
owned.
So
how
does
this
touch
when
the
prop
the
owner
is
deceased
and
then
there's
an
estate
that
is
now
over
the
property
and
there
is
an
existing
claim
or
a
contractor
issue?
A
That's
going
on
because
the
way
I
read,
one
e
family
family
is
included
if
they
you
know,
but
I
just
want
to
understand
like
what
happens
if
it's
an
estate
and
there's
an
there's,
a
contractor
that
did
work
and
the
owner
is
no
longer
living.
What's
the
application
of
this
language
because
are
you
does?
Is
that
being
seen
as
a
business
or
is
that
being
seen
as
something
else.
J
Tim
guest
wine
for
the
state
contractors
board.
As
I
understand
that
scenario,
a
person
who's
hired
a
licensed
contractor
the
that
contractor
has
failed
in
some
aspect.
It
violates
the
chapter
and
caused
an
injury,
and
then
the
person
passes
and
the
estate
is
now
trying
to
get
redress
for
that
contractor's
harm.
I
would
suspect
that
the
subsequent
owners
provisions
would
would
apply
in
those
that
situation
again.
A
A
And
then
just
just
a
quick
aside
to
that,
so
if
so
probate's
over
and
then
there's
a
life
estate
given
do
they
have
rights
as
well
the
person
who
ends
up
with
a
life
estate,
so
you
have
an
estate
and
then
you
have
a
person
who's
given
like
the
right
to
live
in
the
property
until
their
death
after
the
original
owner
died.
Do
they
then
have
a
right.
J
Yes,
what
I
would
suspect
in
that
scenario,
which
is
an
interesting
one,
is
really
not
contemplated
on
the
surface,
so
ordinarily,
we're
considering
that
the
properties
own
in
fee
simple
and
the
traditional
law
school
stuff
about
who
owns
the
property
but
you're,
suggesting
a
life
estate
and
under
the
life
estate.
That
person
would
be
able
to
make
a
claim,
but,
of
course,
there's
still
an
owner
and
that
owner
could
also
make
the
claim.
A
And
because
this
is
you
guys
are
just
changing
existing,
but
what
I
don't
know-
and
maybe
you
can
just
say
this-
I
guess
it's
in.
What's
the
time
limit
for
you
to
then
bring
the
action
I
saw
in
section
four,
but
but
that
is
but
that's
different.
That's
speaking
to
something
else,
so
in
in
the
two
scenarios
that
I
talked
about,
when
should
they
when
does
the
time
run,
to
bring
the
action
against
the
contractor
for
the
fun
under
the
estate
and
life
estate.
J
Scenario,
jim
gaswine
for
the
contractor
board.
The
recovery
fund
statute
of
limitations
is
established
as
four
years
from
after
the
completion
of
the
qualified
services
and
that's
established
in
the
nrs62480.
I
Thank
you,
madam
sure,
and
thank
you,
mr
estwine.
I
appreciate
your
presentation,
your
answers.
I
just
want
to
get
back
to
one
of
the
statements
you
made
with
respect
to
the
tiny
house
provisions
and
and
how
they
are
not
generally
set
on
a
foundation
which
is
true
of
manufactured
homes
of
any
kind,
but
sometimes
they
are
sometimes
we'll
see
these
things
set
on
a
permanent
foundation,
and
does
that
change
the
the
the
the
answer?
I
Does
that
then
somehow
move
those
those
homes
and
the
same
would
apply
to
a
modular
home,
for
example,
they're
manufactured
off-site
they're
but
they're
manufactured
then
to
typical
housing
standards,
and
then
they
are
placed
on
a
firm
permanent
foundation?
Is
that
the
trigger
that's
not
clear
in
this
definition,
but
the
way
you
used
it
made
me
think
that
well
are
we
then
going
to
exclude
modular
homes
which
are
manufactured
to
typical
housing
specifications
and
and
meet
the
current
icbo
codes?
J
And
guess:
fine
for
the
contractor
board,
responding
to
the
sender,
senator
the
the
tiny
home
and
manufactured
home
concern
really
rolls
around,
of
course,
the
division
and
its
role
as
the
the
overseer,
the
the
government
body
that
investigates
those
aspects,
as
well
as
the
contractor's
board
lack
of
expertise
in
those
areas
and
how
they
fit
together.
J
So
at
this
time,
while
we
understand
that
sometimes
some
structures
are
essentially
prefabricated
and
then
a
fixed
of
real
property
at
this
time,
because
we're
un
unaware
of
where
what
would
happen
to
the
that
would
be
an
expansion
of
the
recovery
fund
and
we're
unaware
of
what
would
happen
to
its
funding,
its
ability
to
pay
for
claims
its
ultimate
financial
strength.
J
I
All
right
and
and
so
going
back
then
to
a
modular
home
which
even
national
home
builders
have
engaged
in
constructing
those
would
fall
under
the
board's
purview
because
those
are
built
by
contractors
who
then
affix
them
to
the
permanent
structure.
So,
even
though
technically
they're
manufactured
off-site
they're
manufactured
to
a
normal
building
standard,
as
you
would
a
stick
framed
residence,
that's
built
ground
up
on
the
site
with
those
those
would
still
be
eligible
for
recovery
under
the
fund.
Correct.
J
Tim
guest,
one
for
the
board.
So
what
I
understand
the
question
to
be
is
let's
say
a
licensed
contractor
is
assembling
in
a
fabrication
shop,
say
panels,
you
know
wood
frame
panels
with
a
sheathing
and
those
things
that
are
then
transported
to
a
construction
site
and
erected
at
site,
which
is
a
very
common
practice
now,
as
of
contractors
that
you
know
were
to
achieve
efficiencies
and
higher
production
standards.
J
That
would
remain
still
a
stick
built
house
under
the
recovery
fund
eligible
for
recovery
fund,
because
it's
being
built
at
site,
while
portions
are
being
transported
that
that
would
fall
under
recovery
fund
again,
the
distinction
is
who
licensed
or
controlled
the
original
construction.
If
it
was
the
division,
then
it's
a
manufactured
home
and
not
eligible
for
recovery
fund.
I
Okay-
and
I
guess
that
right,
there
is
what
I
was
looking
for,
because
in
my
case
I
know
that
one
of
my
employees
actually
two
of
my
employers
that
were
national
home
builders,
they're
licensed
they
build
stick
built
projects,
not
in
nevada,
but
in
other
states
they
attempted
they
tried
it
out.
They
built
not
just
panelized
construction,
but
entire
modules
that
they
would
manufacture
off-site.
They
would
truck
them
in.
I
They
would
place
them
as
a
completed
structure
they
would
or
component
of
the
structure
they
would
set
that
on
the
foundation
and
then
but
the
majority
of
the
the
home
itself
from
the
plate
to
crown
of
the
roof
was
built
off
site,
and
so,
but
because
these
were
home
builders,
they
were
licensed
under
624.
I
They
manufactured
that
home
off-site
then
brought
it
on
site,
set
it
on
the
foundation.
It
sounds
like
they
are
covered,
based
on
what
you
just
said.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
distinction
was
clear,
because
I
don't
want
anyone
to
interpret
modular
construction
to
be
the
same.
You
know
modular
construction
that
was
built
by
a
home
builder,
that's
licensed
under
624
that
somehow
they
are
not
eligible
for
recovery
under
the
fund,
so
unless
I've
misstated
what
I
think
I
understood
you
to
say,
I'm
satisfied.
B
So
I
guess
I
have
one
is:
it
is
an
amendment
possible
to
make
sure
that
there's
clarity
here.
C
B
Okay
and
I'm
going
to
ask
if
you
all,
will
work
with
our
council,
mr
king,
and
that
I
think
the
I
think
the
concerns
are
not
just
valid,
but
I
could
see
down
the
road
where
that
could
be
a
problem
and
would
hate
for
something
that
is
technical
or
semantic
that
would
preclude
someone
from
getting
their
just
due.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
So
if
there
are
no
more
additional
questions
from
the
committee
broadcast,
let's
go
to
the
phones.
D
G
Good
morning
sheriff
spearman
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
matt
walker
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
providing
comments
this
morning
in
support
of
assembly
bill
51
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada
homebuilders
association.
The
residential
recovery
fund
is
the
home
building
industry's
commitment
to
home
buyers.
It
makes
homeowners
whole
within
a
matter
of
weeks
when
a
residential
contractor
is
unwilling
or
unable
to
rectify
damage
to
a
home.
G
Southern
nevada,
home
builders
association
see
themselves
as
supporters
and
custodians
of
these
funds,
and
for
that
reason
last
session
we
supported
assembly
bill
26,
which
increased
the
amount
of
that
the
recovery
fund
could
pay
out
to
individual
homeowners
and
ab440,
which
required
a
single
page
disclosure
describing
the
rights
to
pursue
the
recovery
fund
at
sale
and
so
th.
G
This
session,
we
fully
support
ab51
in
order
to
provide
greater
greater
clarity
to
the
public
regarding
fund
coverage
and
protect
the
fund
to
ensure
adequate
resources
are
available
for
homeowners
by
defining
eligible
homes.
The
bill
ensures
that
owner
occupants
of
condos,
townhomes
and
duplexes
have
access
to
the
fun
as
these
types
of
homes
are
fast
growing
segment
of
some
of
our
most
affordable
new
homes.
It's
critical
that
these
homeowners
are
aware
of
this
resource
and
have
access
to
the
fun
and
can
be
made
whole
within
a
matter
of
weeks
by
completing
a
simple
form.
G
We
thank
the
contractors
for
bringing
this
issue
forward
and
urge
the
committee
support
and
because
there
was
some
conversation,
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
our
general
rule
of
thumb
on
recovery
is
that
it
depends
on
who
issues
the
permit,
so
a
permit
issued
by
a
building
department
that
that
homeowner
would
pursue
investigation
and
recovery
under
the
state
contractor's
board.
If
the
manufactured
housing
division
issues
the
permit,
then
the
manufactured
housing
division
will
be
responsible
for
investigation
and
workmanship
issues
and
and
access
to
its
fund,
that's
paid
for
by
park
owner
assessment
fees.
G
So
thank
you
again
for
your
time
and
please
support
ab51.
Thank
you.
B
Hold
on
broadcast
senator
piglet
has
a
question
so
caller's.
Still
there.
D
No,
he
dropped
off
right
away.
Sorry
chair.
I
That's
going
to
be
setting
whether
it's
a
manufactured
home,
the
tiny
home
or
a
modular
home
they've
got
to
pull
a
permit
in
order
to
build
the
foundation
and
do
the
underground
and
if
they're
pulling
the
the,
if
they're
a
contractor
under
624
pulling
the
permit,
then
they
will
rope
in
the
others,
and
I
you
know
my
concern
is
that
this
bill
appears
to
be
narrowing
the
scope
of
of
applicants
or
for
the
recovery
fund,
and
I'm
not
sure
I
can
support
that.
I
If,
if
that's
the
case,
so
that's
why
I'm
trying
to
get
down
to
you
know:
where
are
we
drawing
this
line
and
how
does
it
differ
from
what
we
had
before
anyway?
I'll
take
that
up
with
mr
walker?
Thank
you.
D
G
Good
morning,
cheers
spearman
and
members
of
the
committee
lindsey
knox
with
mcdonald
carano
on
behalf
of
the
builders
association
of
northern
nevada
and
the
nevada
home
builders
association.
Here
in
support
of
ab51,
the
home
building
industry
takes
every
opportunity
possible
to
highlight.
G
B
G
The
homebuilders
home
building
industry
takes
every
opportunity
possible
to
highlight
the
importance
of
the
recovery
fund
as
an
effective
alternative
to
litigation.
The
recovery
fund
provides
a
tested
and
efficient
remedy
for
consumers
victimized
by
defective
work.
Homeowner
claims
against
the
recovery
fund
are
adjudicated
within
six
months
by
contract.
Contrast,
most
lawsuits
take
years
to
be
resolved.
We
support
ab51
because
it
ensures
the
ongoing
viability
of
the
recovery
fund,
protects
homeowners
and
ensures
that
contractors
are
held
accountable
for
substandard
work.
G
B
Okay,
let's
move
to
opposition.
B
A
A
Sorry
can
I
pull
this
down?
Is
that
is
that
legal?
Can
I
alexis
motorix
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors?
We
are
here
in
support
of
ab51
as
presented.
We
believe
this
is
building
on
a
successful
program
by
clarifying
who
is
eligible
to
receive
these
funds.
We
believe
it
is
good
public
policy
and
we'll
continue
to
build
confidence
in
the
construction
industry.
Thank
you.
B
C
I
guess
margie
green
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
sheriff's
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
present
ab51.
Today,
the
residential
recovery
fund
has
been
a
valuable
resource
for
nevada
homeowners.
For
the
past
22
years,
the
contractor's
board
has
been
identifying
opportunities
to
improve
and
clarify
the
recovery
fund
program
in
recent
years,
as
new
trends
are
noticed,
and
we
feel
the
changes
proposed
before
you
today
further
these
efforts.
C
B
B
B
All
right,
thank
you,
so
we'll
close
out
public
comment.
Are
there
any
comments
or
questions
from
committee
members?
Here
we
go
okay,
so
this
will
conclude
our
meeting
for
today
and
we
will
meet
again
on
monday.
The
3rd
of
may
at
8
o'clock
am
thank
you
so
much
and
you
all
have
a
happy
weekend.