02/13/2008 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB289 | |
| HJR24 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2008
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 289
"An Act exempting employers from paying unemployment tax for
crewmembers on fishing vessels that respond or prepare to
respond to, or that prepare for or engage in an emergency or
practice drill response to, an oil spill; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CS HB 289(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Opposing any law that would establish a federal insurance
regulatory system.
- MOVED HJR 24 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 289
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYMENT TAX EXEMPTION: SPILL RESPONSE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS, SEATON
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) FSH, L&C
01/23/08 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
01/23/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/08 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/28/08 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM BARNES 124
01/28/08 (H) Moved CSHB 289(FSH) Out of Committee
01/28/08 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/30/08 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 4DP
01/30/08 (H) DP: HOLMES, EDGMON, JOHANSEN, SEATON
02/13/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HJR 24
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING FEDERAL INSURANCE REGULATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
05/09/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/09/07 (H) L&C
02/13/08 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a joint prime sponsor of HB
289.
ROCHELLE VAN DEN BROEK, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen United (CDFU)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 289.
TRACY MAYHEW, Port Representative
Seafarers International Union (SIU)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 289.
JOHN DEVENS,Ph.D., Executive Director
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Commission
(RCAC)
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 289.
PAULA SCAVERA, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 289.
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska.
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 289 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative John Coghill.
JEFFREY TROUTT, Deputy Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 24.
JOHN GRUMMETT, President
Alaska Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers, Inc.(AIIAB);
Vice-President, Shattuck & Grummett, Inc.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 24.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:05:17 PM. Representatives
Gatto, Buch, Gardner, and Olson were present at the call to
order. Representatives Neuman, LeDoux, and Ramras arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 289-EMPLOYMENT TAX EXEMPTION: SPILL RESPONSE
3:05:33 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 289,"An Act exempting employers from paying
unemployment tax for crewmembers on fishing vessels that respond
or prepare to respond to, or that prepare for or engage in an
emergency or practice drill response to, an oil spill; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CS
HB 289(FSH)].
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors, stated that commercial
fishermen paid solely by the catch are exempt from unemployment
insurance under state and federal law. However, commercial
fishermen who are paid by any other method are considered
employees and are not exempt. This bill would exempt commercial
fishermen who participate in oil spill response training and
duties from having to pay unemployment taxes so long as the
duration is seven days or less. This bill stems from a key
element of the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). Oil
spill contingency plans provide for vessels of opportunity and
fishing vessels that contract with the oil spill response
organization to form the basis for an oil spill response. The
crew must undergo annual training to maintain their hazardous
materials operator cards. Although the crew is paid for the
training, their wages are outside the percentage of the catch.
Thus, the oil spill training wages are subject to the
unemployment insurance tax. Since annual training averages one
day, or eight hours a year, the person will never qualify for
unemployment insurance, he opined. Therefore, HB 289 would
exempt vessel owners and crew so long as the training does not
exceed seven days of training. In the case of a major spill,
the crew would likely work more than seven days, he opined. In
those instances the vessel owners and crew would be subject to
the unemployment, he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the vessel owners or crew
may also opt into the unemployment insurance program. He noted
that there has not been any opposition to HB 289. The committee
packet includes an email exchange from the federal counterpart
of the Department of Labor & Workforce Development relating that
excluding workers from the state unemployment tax for temporary
services will not pose any federal violations. He characterized
HB 289 as a bill needed to maintain an oil spill response
capability.
3:11:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that those who do not pay the
unemployment tax are not eligible to receive benefits. He
inquired as to whether it is possible for someone to abuse the
system. He further inquired as to how often over a one-month
period, could a person work fewer than seven continuous days.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted the difficulty for vessel operators
to maintain a crew, which is such that a vessel operator would
not likely switch out crew to take advantage of the exemption.
He stated that HB 289 would only affect commercial fishermen and
not crew on tenders, since the tender crewmen or tugboat
operators are paid employees and not subject to earning a
percentage of the catch.
3:14:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to whether each training period
is considered separately, and further inquired as to how HB 289
would apply if there were several training sessions.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that when a crew member worked
more than seven days in oil response training, the employer
would automatically submit the unemployment tax paperwork. He
said he hasn't considered instances in which crew might only
require one additional day of training.
3:15:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how often oil spill response training
is offered.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that training time varies and he
explained the oil spill response training times: In Cook Inlet
all participants are required to have 1-day training,
approximately 12 vessels participate, and the remaining 100 do
not; in Prince William Sound the training is for approximately 1
week each year, with 50 core vessels participating; a second
group trains for a shorter period of time; yet another group
comprises the "vessels of opportunity" who sign up and agree to
certify crews, and their training is similar to Cook Inlet
vessels. While there are several layers of oil spill response
training, none of the training exceeds seven continuous days, he
noted.
3:17:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed concern with respect to the
trigger of "seven continuous days" such that if training were
interrupted due to a storm, the training period might exceed
seven days. She asked the sponsor to consider amending the
language in HB 289 to limit the specific number of hours of
training that a vessel owner or crew could participate in such
as 56 hours, before he/she would be required to pay the
unemployment tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the purpose for designating
seven continuous days is to ensure that if there was a massive
response to a spill that the vessel owner or crew would be
subject to the unemployment tax. Since training offered does
not exceed seven days, and compensation is limited, the "seven
continuous days" satisfies the intended purpose.
3:20:06 PM
ROCHELLE VAN DEN BROEK, Executive Director, Cordova District
Fishermen United (CDFU), related that the CDFU supports HB 289.
The CDFU represents over 1,000 commercial fishermen in Prince
William Sound, including over 150 vessel owners that participate
in oil spill response training, she noted, and are trained as
professional oil spill responders. The vessel operators are
required to hire crew members several times a year to
participate in training activities, but the training is limited
to a few days a year. She surmised that the individual earnings
for each crew member are less than $700 annually. Last year,
vessel owners received letters notifying them oil spill response
training is subject to the unemployment insurance tax. Many
vessel owners found the paperwork and tax activities onerous and
threatened to abandon the training activities. Since the
paperwork and tax collection places a disproportionate burden on
vessel owners, CDFU lobbied for change. In the wake of the
Exxon Valdez oil spill, the state needs to ensure adequate
vessel owners and crew trained to respond in the event of
another major oil spill, she opined.
3:22:37 PM
TRACY MAYHEW, Port Representative, Seafarers International Union
(SIU), stated that the SIU represents merchant mariners on large
ocean going vessels. The SIU supports HB 289, she related. The
contingency plan relies on commercial fishermen and vessel
owners' participation. In fact, if vessel owners and commercial
fishermen do not participate in oil spill response efforts, the
contingency plan could be held noncompliant, she cautioned. She
said, "Who better to protect Alaska waters than Alaskans." She
stressed that the contingency plan needs commercial fishermen
involved consistently to provide for a well trained oil response
team. She offered that SIU supports the training for crew
members and vessel owners. She said that HB 289 would create an
exemption from unemployment tax. However, the absence of an
exemption would create a disincentive for vessel owners and
commercial fishermen to participate in this vital program. It
would also put other Alaska livelihoods at risk, she opined.
3:24:24 PM
JOHN DEVENS, Ph.D., Executive Director, Prince William Sound
Regional Citizens Advisory Commission (RCAC), stated that the
RCAC was created after the Exxon Valdez oil spill to prevent
accidents and ensure improved cleanup if another oil spill
happens. With respect to cleanup, fishing vessels play a vital
role in the system. This bill is an important measure to ensure
that Alaska's fishing vessel program continues to function as it
should. Last summer, the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD) informed fishing vessel captains that they
were required to collect unemployment tax on crew members
engaged in oil spill response training, who are exempt from
unemployment coverage during normal fishing activities. The
RCAC held discussions with vessel captains and became concerned
that many of them might drop out of the program due to the
recordkeeping and collection of the unemployment tax. This bill
would provide a remedy by allowing an exemption for vessel
owners and commercial fishermen involved in training [of limited
duration] for oil spill response. He related that the Prince
William Sound RCAC urges the committee to pass HB 289. He
characterized HB 289 as "a good thing that everybody favors."
3:26:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referred to a letter from Mr. Devens, with
respect to questions on HB 289. He inquired as to whether the
questions have been addressed in the bill.
DR. DEVENS offered that he was misinformed at the time he wrote
the letter. He offered that he was under the assumption the
matter of unemployment tax had to be handled through the U.S.
Department of Labor, but he was mistaken. He said he
subsequently wrote to the DLWD and rescinded his earlier letter.
3:28:18 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 289.
3:29:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to whether all the questions
with the U.S. Department of Labor have been answered with
respect to the unemployment tax in HB 289.
PAULA SCAVERA, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), referred to
an e-mail exchange in the committee packet between Robert
Johnston, Supervisor, State Conformity and Compliance Team, U.S.
Department of Labor and Mr. Berkowitz, Director, Pacific Coast
Operations, Transportation Institute, Seattle, Washington. Mr.
Johnston reviews all state laws and regulations to ensure that
they comply with federal law, she noted. She read into the
record:
Mr. Berkowitz, I have reviewed the draft legislation
that you provided regarding the Alaska UI coverage
issue for fishermen participating in oil spill
exercises/drills/response. As drafted, it does not
appear to create any issues with Federal unemployment
compensation law and as such will not endanger the
certification of Alaska's UC law under FUTA.
MS. SCAVERA noted that FUTA refers to the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act.
3:31:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report the CSHB 289(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 289(FSH) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
3:31:46 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:31 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.
HJR 24-OPPOSING FEDERAL INSURANCE REGULATION
3:37:47 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24, Opposing any law that would
establish a federal insurance regulatory system.
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that this resolution opposes
attempts by Congress to bifurcate insurance regulation between
the states and the federal government. The "Optional Federal
Charter" has been introduced in both chambers of the U.S.
Congress, she said. She explained the history of federal
regulation of insurance. She said that to avoid such a move by
Congress to enact federal regulation of insurance, the
legislature passed HB 439 unanimously in May 2006. She related
that HB 439 added Alaska to the Interstate Insurance Product
Regulation Compact. This commission, comprised of 30 states,
serves as a single point of filing for specified insurance
products such as life insurance, annuities, and disability
income, and established uniform national standards for those
products. This resolution affirms state's rights, of which the
prime sponsor is a strong proponent, she opined. This
resolution affirms Alaska's opposition to the federal government
attempting to supersede state regulation of insurance, she
stated. She further opined that it would be best to keep
insurance providers under state regulations. She urged the
committee to support HJR 24.
3:40:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for an explanation of a clause
on page 2, line 21, of HJR 24, which read:
WHEREAS a federal insurance regulatory system would
cause a loss of jobs; and
3:41:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as whether the "FURTHER RESOLVED"
clause means essentially that Alaska opposes "more bigger,
bloated federal government." He referred to page 2, line 27-28,
of HJR 24, which read:
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature
opposes any law that would establish a federal
insurance regulatory system or otherwise alter the
McCarran-Ferguson Act.
3:42:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether the "Optional
Federal Charter" means that it is optional for states to
participate.
MS. LIDSTER answered that it would be optional, and that within
the state you may have some insurance agents that have chosen to
fall under the federal regulations, but those who choose not to
use the federal guidelines would fall under state regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether individual agents
have the option to choose either state or federal regulations as
guidelines.
MS. LIDSTER answered yes, individual agents can select either
state or federal regulations.
CHAIR OLSON clarified that it would be companies and producers,
and not agents.
3:43:14 PM
JEFFREY TROUTT, Deputy Director, Division of Insurance,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), related the division's strong support for HJR 24. For
over 100 years state regulation has served consumers in the
country and served it well, he opined. Expertise has been
developed in state insurance departments nationwide. Part of
the reason for this is that state regulations are closer to the
people, he surmised. He noted that in fiscal year 2006, the
division closed over 330 consumer complaints, which resulted in
a return of over $500,000 to consumers wrongfully denied claims.
He further opined that the state can also monitor solvency
issues. The division can also respond more quickly to update
its statutes based on market conditions or uniformity. He noted
that the division works with counterparts in other states to
streamline licensing. While the process never works as fast or
efficiently as the division would like, there is no guarantee
that the federal process would be an improvement. He related
some concerns the division would have with an optional federal
charter, such as that federal regulations have not been
developed and there is no way to know what might be included, or
whether items such as mandatory benefits would be covered in an
optional federal charter. The division and agents rely on the
abundance of insurance case law in each state and with the
federal regulations, federal courts would have jurisdiction.
Additionally, state regulation allows for local control over
such things as investigations, prosecutions, and financial and
market examinations.
3:48:39 PM
MR. TROUTT offered that the division strives for uniformity
through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
(NAIC). Alaska would have an insignificant voice as one of 53
jurisdictions in a federal regulatory system, which is a huge
bureaucracy, he opined. He related concern about taxation
revenues. Under the bill before Congress whether the state
would continue to have the ability to tax premiums, but he
expressed concern whether that would continue. He also offered
that the idea of a federal charter has been considered and
supported by some within the industry since it is more complex
to understand regulations and licensure in 50 separate
jurisdictions. State borders create some barriers, he opined,
but Alaska has made it as unobtrusive as possible for businesses
while still maintaining consumer protections.
3:51:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to page 2, line 18, of HJR 24,
and inquired as to the definition of "residual market programs."
She further asked whether the taxes and fees currently paid to
the state would result in decreased premiums if the state were
under federal regulations.
MR. TROUTT explained that the division charges a fee for
licensees to cover the administrative costs for the program.
All states, including Alaska, collect consumer premium taxes. A
federal charter would create a system similar to the banking
industry and most large companies would likely elect to fall
under the federal charter because it is simpler for large
companies to follow federal rules. However, in doing so,
consumer protections could erode and consumers would be left
with little recourse, he opined, because the insurance would
fall under federal jurisdiction.
3:55:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether it would reduce
consumers' premium costs.
MR. TROUTT said he doubted that the federal government could
reduce premiums and regulate for less cost. While he said he
has no proof, he could not think of any instance in which cost
is reduced due to federal management or regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to any benefit to Alaskans
under an optional federal charter.
MR. TROUTT answered that he did not think so. He related that
the division has streamlined the process for companies to
compete in Alaska. He surmised that increased competition could
result in lowered premiums, but he did not see that happening
under an optional federal charter since Alaska is a small
market.
3:58:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 2, line 21, of HJR 24,
and inquired as to why a federal regulatory system would cause a
loss of jobs.
MR. TROUTT surmised one reason might be job migration.
CHAIR OLSON interjected that some insurance companies that are
domiciled in Alaska could move outside and consolidate.
MR. TROUTT noted his agreement. He said that it is likely that
companies would find it easier to buy other companies and
consolidate in major metropolitan areas such as Washington D.C.
or regionally such as Sacramento, California. In Alaska, it may
result in the loss of independent companies due to buyouts.
4:00:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to why the agents and brokers
agree with the companies.
MR. TROUTT answered he did not know. He speculated that
independent companies would likely oppose an optional federal
charter.
CHAIR OLSON pointed out that he serves as a member of the
National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL), comprised
of Labor and Commerce Committee chairs nationwide. He related
that NCOIL supports HJR 24 and it is one of its highest
priorities. He surmised that the larger companies would have an
advantage under federal regulation, but that smaller companies,
agents, and brokers would not.
4:02:47 PM
JOHN GRUMMETT, President, Alaska Independent Insurance Agents &
Brokers, Inc.(AIIAB); Vice-President, Shattuck and Grummett,
Inc., said that as members of the AIIAB, agents represent the
public with respect to consumer protection. He referred members
to a letter from the AIIAB in the members' packets, and read the
following: [original punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers
(AIIAB) would like to submit the following comments in
support of HJR 24.
AIIAB is one of the oldest and largest producer trade
associations in Alaska. We represent over 360
independent business owners, agents, brokers and
employees in the State of Alaska who sell and service
the personal and business insurance needs of
consumers. Independent agents and brokers provide a
professional service to their clients regarding their
property, casualty, life, health, employee benefit
plans and retirement plans.
State Based Consumer Protections Must Remain Intact
Alaska in particular has a difficult insurance
environment at best. Alaska struggles to find
adequate markets and the needs of Alaskan consumers
vary greatly from consumers of other states. State
Regulators understand the nuances of their own
marketplace much better and can respond to market
demands much quicker than a Federal Regulator. It is
imperative that the consumer protections that the
state regulation of insurance provides remains intact.
The creation of an Optional Federal Charter, we
believe would decrease the current consumer
protections.
Support for Targeted Federal Legislation
AIIAB does support streamlining and modernizing the
State system of insurance regulation through targeted
and limited federal legislation which would act as
"tools" to help establish reciprocity or uniformity to
create interstate consistency. This would allow for a
system that responds quicker to industry demands yet
maintains the State based consumer safeguards which
are critical. Examples of limited federal legislation
that have worked include:
· Surplus Lines and Reinsurance Reform
· Agent and Company Licensing Reform
·
Federal Regulation is not the Answer
As stated previously, we do agree that there is a need
for specific targeted regulation to improve
efficiencies and uniformity in insurance regulation.
It is our belief that an "optional" federal charter is
not the answer and would increase confusion for both
consumers and the agents and brokers that service
consumers. AIIAB has many reasons for opposing
Federal oversight of the Insurance Industry, here are
just a few:
· Local insurance regulation works best for
consumers and the state system ensures a level of
responsiveness to consumers that could not be
matched at the federal level.
· Agents and brokers would be required to become
experts on both the state and federal regulations
which apply to insurance.
· It would create a confusing environment whereby
independent agents may have to deal with multiple
insurance companies that could choose to follow
state regulation or federal legislation. This
would force agents who choose to be state
licensed to know and understand a federal
regulatory system they may prefer to not deal
with but have no choice.
· Small insurance companies could be at a
competitive disadvantage against larger companies
that could afford to switch between the two
systems. The smaller companies could get stuck
in an unfavorable regulatory environment that
they can't afford to get out of.
· By eliminating or drastically limiting regulatory
review of policy language for the small
commercial and personal lines markets, Federal
Regulation would leave consumers unprotected.
· Federal Regulation would have a negative impact
on revenue Alaska collects through a loss of
licensing fees and could threaten state premium
tax revenue - critical funding relied upon by the
states for various purposes.
Federal Regulatory Oversite is not the answer and
would only provide confusion to our consumers, brokers
and agents. We urge you to support HJR 24.
MR. GRUMMETT pointed out that the premium tax collected was over
$46 million last year, which is deposited into the state's
general fund.
CHAIR OLSON offered that the premium tax is the second largest
source of tax revenue to the state.
4:08:13 PM
MR. GRUMMETT noted the following organizations have adopted
similar resolutions or have opposed federal insurance
chartering: National Governor's Association, The National
Conference of Insurance Legislators, the National Council of
State Legislatures (NCSL), The Council of State Government
(CSG), and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
(NAIC). Texas adopted a Senate concurrent resolution last year
and many other states are considering similar resolutions, he
offered.
4:09:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to whether insurance companies
help individuals who have issues with an insurance company such
as a person who files a claim and is denied by the insurance
company.
MR. GRUMMETT explained that if the client has a problem, his
company would recommend the client file an unfair practices
complaint with the Division of Insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that consumers generally don't want
the federal government involved. He inquired as to Mr.
Grummet's involvement if an individual complained about unfair
treatment.
MR. GRUMMETT answered that his company's involvement would be
limited. In fact, he said he's never had a client complain that
he/she was not treated fairly.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed a scenario in which an individual
complained to Mr. Grummett about an ongoing issue with a major
insurance provider.
MR. GRUMMETT said he would refer the individual to the Division
of Insurance. He further advised that his company can only be
involved with his company's client since companies only
represent one agent or broker, but he can refer the person to
the division. He offered that he has previously referred
individuals to the division.
4:12:13 PM
MR. GRUMMETT, in response to Representative LeDoux, explained
that he represents the person buying the insurance, not the
person selling the insurance. He opined that it is his job to
get the best coverage for the best price for his clients. He
further opined that competition ensures that will happen since
customers shop for insurance.
MR. GRUMMETT, in response to Representative LeDoux, answered
that his company sells commercial, auto, building, and business
insurance on behalf of multiple insurers.
4:13:33 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HJR 24.
4:13:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report HJR 24 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. Representative Gardner commented that she could not see
any benefit to consumers to give small and large insurance
companies a choice to select the federal regulatory system.
There being no objection, HJR 24 was reported from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
4:15:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|