01/23/2004 03:21 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 23, 2004
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Norman Rokeberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 340
"An Act relating to damages in an action for a defect in the
design, construction, and remodeling of certain dwellings; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 340(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"An Act relating to the devices, including carbon monoxide
detection devices, required in dwellings; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 351(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 389
"An Act relating to certain monetary advances in which the
deposit or other negotiation of certain instruments to pay the
advances is delayed until a later date; and providing for an
effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 340
SHORT TITLE: DAMAGES IN CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS
REPRESENTATIVE(S): MEYER
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) L&C, JUD
01/23/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 351
SHORT TITLE: CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTION DEVICES
REPRESENTATIVE(S): GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) L&C, STA
01/21/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/21/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/21/04 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/23/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 340,
explained an amendment, and answered questions.
DONNA McCREADY, Attorney at Law
Alaska Trial Lawyers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 340, characterizing
the bill as "anti-consumer."
STEVE ORR
Orr Construction
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 340.
ROBIN WARD
Alaska State Home Builders Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the Alaska State Home
Builders Association in favor of HB 340.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as one of the two sponsors of HB
351.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Lynn, Gatto, Crawford, and Guttenberg were present at
the call to order.
HB 340-DAMAGES IN CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 340, "An Act relating to damages in an action
for a defect in the design, construction, and remodeling of
certain dwellings; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0015
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
introduced HB 340, and stated that this bill limits the damages
that can be awarded in a construction defect lawsuit to the
actual cost of repairs; the reasonable expenses of temporary
housing; the reduction in the market value, if any, caused by
the defect; and the reasonable and necessary attorney fees. He
noted that this bill provides that the damages awarded in a
construction defect lawsuit may not exceed the greater of the
purchase price of the home or the current fair market value of
the home without the defect. This bill does not limit or affect
lawsuits alleging personal injury or wrongful death resulting
from the construction defect.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said HB 340 is a significant step in
assisting homebuilders and contractors in attaining affordable
and adequate general liability insurance. This, in turn, has a
direct effect on the cost of a new home. He referred to an
article from the state of Nevada that estimates that for every
$1,000 increase in the cost of insurance, 1,400 potential buyers
were squeezed out of the market. He stated that since 2001,
there's been an increase in the cost of general liability
insurance and the policies that are issued are very limited in
their coverage. As far as he knows, there are only two national
insurance companies willing to write general liability coverage
in Alaska. He'd met with one from Nevada, and stated that the
perception of the Alaskan market is that it is high-risk, very
small, and not profitable for [insurance companies].
He believes that HB 340 will make Alaska, and the homebuilders
in Alaska, a more attractive group to insure, and this fact will
ultimately protect constituents. Insurance companies will see
that the State of Alaska is interested in protecting growth,
business, and jobs when it comes to residential construction.
He noted that in the November issue of the "Alaska Economic
Trends" it was recorded that since 1989, construction has
provided more certainty and steadiness in the state's economy
industry than most other industries when it comes to overall
employment and growth.
He warned, however, that because fewer insurance companies are
insuring Alaska's builders, or are insuring at extremely high
rates, this [trend] can only be expected to decline. He said
that other states, mostly western states, have passed similar
legislation. He promised that the committee would hear
testimony from construction professionals around the state about
this insurance crisis and how it is affecting their business
and, ultimately, constituents and consumers.
Number 0369
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated that HB 340, coupled with the bill
passed last year, is a necessary measure to attract insurance
companies back to Alaska to provide the state-mandated insurance
coverage to construction professionals. He feels these measures
will also keep the American dream of owning one's own home
alive.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed the problem of two objects for sale
at the exact same price, for example, a brand-new computer and a
reconditioned computer. He said if there was a choice between
brand-new and reconditioned for the same price, he thinks that
100 percent [of buyers] would choose the brand-new computer. He
stated:
When we repair defects in a house, even though they
are repaired, I'm not as comfortable - you're not
either - when they come to your house, tear the wall
apart, and fix something, attach new wires and fix the
new house - so that even though the opportunity to
repair a defect is allowed, shouldn't I, as the
homeowner, be entitled to at least some additional
compensation, in addition to the repair, because I
have suffered some kind of a loss here? All would
agree that there is some kind of a loss if you would
always pick the new, rather than the repair.
Number 0536
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER admitted that this was a good point, but
said he didn't clearly understand how this related to the
construction industry. He noted that the bill included
"reasonable costs," and he thinks that if a case had to go
before a judge (indisc. -- members talking).
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO wondered if the consumer's right to go to
court for damages was adequately protected under HB 340.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that, if he recalls, a bill
passed last year that said if the homeowner was not satisfied
with the work that the builder did to cure the problem, then the
homeowner still had the right to litigate.
Number 0637
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO also noted that the "lemon law" does exist
and he went on to say:
You fix it three times, I want a new car. So with
this law it says, "Either you get this thing fixed or
you have to give them another one." I'm looking for
the connection that says, at some point, the owner is
entitled; especially if he has to put up with the
nuisance of doing without something he already paid
for, to have repairmen in and out. So I was thinking
of some other limitation that goes a little bit beyond
the cost to repair, but "rather no more than 110
percent of the cost to repair," or something like
that. Sometimes you don't even want the original
builder to come in and repair, because now that's the
last person you want to see because you've already had
arguments. There are so many things that affect the
consumer.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER agreed, but also noted that between the
bill from last year and HB 340, this situation would be covered.
He believes that if consumers are not totally satisfied, they
can go to court. Some of the nuisance factors that
Representative Gatto referred to would be considered a
reasonable expense, he suggested.
CHAIR ANDERSON added that the court uses "reasonable" as a term
in many statutes, and courts interpret it using market value and
market standards. He explained that sometimes there has been a
fear that when legislators put "reasonable" into a bill,
"reasonable" might be too high or too low. He said the court
interprets "reasonable" to be synonymous with how much a home or
repair would cost.
Number 0760
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that he is in the construction
industry, is sensitive to the cost of insurance, and understands
that there are many impediments to completing a building
project. He hopes that as the insurance companies pass the
increased costs on to the builders, and ultimately to the
consumers, they also pass along the savings. He said HB 340
will reduce some of their exposure. He wished there was a way
to quantify these savings.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he thinks that as the number of
insurance companies that come to Alaska to write insurance
increases, the rates will drop, and this savings will be passed
on to the homebuilders. Then the homebuilders will, ultimately,
pass [the savings] on to the consumer. He mentioned some
amendments that will be brought up later on in this meeting.
Number 0980
DONNA McCREADY, Attorney at Law, Alaska Trial Lawyers, testified
on HB 340 and noted she has some concerns:
First and foremost, I'm concerned that this really
ends up hurting the consumers in Alaska. I was
listening to Representative Meyer, but I have a real
concern that it is shifting the burden of any kind of
defect in construction to individual consumers. They
really are not in the best position to absorb that
burden, and really, it seems to me that the builders
and the insurance companies are.
The argument that this is somehow going to attract
more insurance companies to Alaska, or that insurance
companies will somehow lower their premiums, you know,
our experience in Alaska with capping damages in
personal injury cases, [is that is] has not affected
insurance premiums in any way that has helped the
consumer. In fact, it's really made it difficult for
Alaskans who have genuinely been hurt to actually
bring their claims and have them heard in court. They
just can't afford to do that. So, I'm very concerned
about that aspect of it. Insurance premiums, since
damages have been capped in personal injury cases,
have not come down; consumers have not been helped by
that at all, and I can see that by limiting damages in
this arena, [HB 340] is also not going to help the
consumer. My reading, my experience, and my knowledge
in this area is that the insurance premiums are driven
by the market. They are not affected by legislation
such as this.
MS. McCREADY went on to characterize HB 340 as "anti-consumer
legislation." When she reads that this bill will cap damages,
and tying this cap to the fair market value of the property, she
said there would be relocation fees or attorney fees, and,
again, the consumer ends up bearing these fees. She feels that
the builder's insurance company should have to pay these fees.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if homeowners could sue for as
much as they wanted in a circumstance that Representative Meyer
is trying to cap.
MS. McCREADY responded that she thinks there are "natural caps,"
in terms of the law, that define how damages are measured. She
stated that these are not arbitrary caps. She pointed out,
"It's not just 'the sky is the limit'." What she sees with this
legislation is that arbitrary caps are being put into place that
will end up hurting the consumer.
Number 1208
CHAIR ANDERSON read from the bill, which states:
(1) the reasonable cost of repairs necessary
to cure a defect, including reasonable and necessary
engineering or consulting fees required to evaluate
and cure the defect, that the construction
professional is responsible for repairing;
(2) the reasonable expenses of temporary
housing reasonably necessary during the repair period;
(3) the reduction in market value, if any,
to the extent that the reduction is due to the defect;
and
(4) reasonable and necessary attorney fees.
CHAIR ANDERSON questioned how Ms. McCready could characterize
this bill as "anti-consumer," since it has all of the above
protections for the consumer built into it. In his opinion,
this bill would put a cap on frivolous lawsuits.
Number 1281
MS. McCREADY referred to subsection (b), which says, "The total
damages awarded for an action covered under AS 09.45.881 -
09.45.899 may not exceed the greater of the claimant's purchase
price for the residence or the current fair market value of the
residence without the defect." She said she does not think this
section naturally follows from the last section, where all the
reasonable costs and fees are allowed. Ms. McCready explained:
If you are saying the damages cannot exceed the
greater of the claimant's purchase price for the
residence or the current fair market value, then I'm
sorry, I don't understand, then, how relocation,
attorney's fees, appraisal, all of these fees are then
paid for. They are paid for out of the consumer's
pocket. So that's why I'm saying I don't agree with
capping the damages in this manner.
I do want to comment, and I will be honest with you,
this is not an area in which I have practiced, in
terms of construction or suing for defects from
construction. I certainly am aware of practitioners
who practice in that area, but when people talk about
frivolous lawsuits, I will tell you from my own
experience that that just gets my ire up. I don't
think people realize how costly it is for attorneys
and for plaintiffs to actually bring a lawsuit against
any kind of professional in this state. We don't do
it lightly because there are risks out there. You can
end up spending a lot of money and losing a lot of
money. I am not aware of attorneys who are just
running down to the courthouse and filing frivolous
lawsuits. I don't see that.
Number 1441
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to page 1, line 10, which
refers to the construction professional. He asked if it is Ms.
McCready's impression that the homeowner who has damages is
required to go back to the actual builder that caused the
damages for the repair. He stated that his concern is that a
homeowner's only responsibility is to go back to the
construction professional who caused the damage. He thinks
there's no provision for the homeowner to go to a third party to
get the repair done.
MS. McCREADY responded that she did not know the answer to that
question.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER recalled that the buyer signs a contract
that states that if he or she has any problems, complaints, or
defects, the buyer goes back to the builder first. Then the
builder has 30 days to fix the problem. If it doesn't happen,
the buyer can take the builder to court. He stated that under
this bill the homeowner would have to go back to the builder.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed concern that if the
relationship between both parties has deteriorated badly, the
construction professional would have the option to subcontract
the work.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER agreed that this is the case.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that he thinks it's reasonable when
a buyer signs a contract with a builder that the buyer does not
think he/she is signing with a subcontractor. The buyer signs
it with the builder, and has no recourse, except to go back to
the builder. He wonders what would happen if the builder goes
to Nevada.
CHAIR ANDERSON assured him that the buyer does have recourse
"with a multitude of parties." The buyer has the right to sue
subcontractors.
Number 1619
STEVE ORR, Orr Construction, Wasilla, told the committee that he
does four to five million dollars in sales a year. He
testified:
In 2002, my combined insurances for my business was
slightly under $47,000. [In] year 2003 my insurance,
combined for my business, was slightly under $113,000.
My general liability went from about $8,000 to $80,000
a year. So what that did, it added $2,000 per house
for my future buyers, and I work predominantly entry-
level to middle-income, the hardworking people. That
$2,000 might have bought them that extra bedroom, so
they didn't have to stack their children so deep. So,
it does have quite an impact. To elaborate, if you
have ever been in litigation -- I've been through one
before; it cost a quarter-million dollars. In the
end, nobody really won because nobody could say
anybody did anything wrong. After it was all over, a
couple of people went to their offices; the plaintiffs
went to their fourplex because they gave up their
home; the builder had to go out and figure out how to
earn that extra $72,000 that somebody got on their
206, who went to Arizona for a break.
MR. ORR went on to note that he built 49 homes in 2003. He does
not think this bill "closes the door on consumers"; but rather,
it "closes the door a little bit more, to be sure that if
somebody wants to bring suit, they need to be sure that they do
have a problem."
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked why insurance rates have gone up.
Representative Gatto also asked, if Mr. Orr made a repair at 11
months, whether he would then give the consumer an additional
one-year warranty on that repair.
MR. ORR replied that issues, such as different soils,
particularly in the West and Southwest, had caused the increase
[in insurance costs]. He replied that if he had done a repair,
he does give the consumer an additional one-year warranty on
that repair.
Number 1819
ROBIN WARD, Alaska State Home Builders Association, stated that
she had just returned from the national homebuilders'
association convention. She pointed out that every state has
been affected by the increase in cost and the lack of
availability of insurance. She shared that the settlements in
construction litigation are so high that profit is being lost,
and it's also raising costs. She noted that the industry has to
get control over what happens in case law and the exclusions
that result. Ms. Ward stated that these steps are necessary in
order to control the damages of settlements. She said,
otherwise, the construction industry will continue to have
rising costs in liability insurance. She reported that her
liability insurance went up $28,000 and she only does 10 houses
a year. She declared that this is not "value-added"; she is not
adding anything of benefit to the consumer. She feels it is a
very important bill, because it will help control the damages
awarded in settlements.
Number 1912
CHAIR ANDERSON asked how many companies that build homes do
business in Alaska; could Ms. Ward estimate how many homes were
built in 2003?
MS. WARD said she suspects that about 1,300 companies, many who
only build two or three homes a year, are currently building
homes in Alaska. She estimated that approximately 3,000 new
homes were built statewide by private contractors, not including
housing built by Native corporations.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked her to estimate the number of
lawsuits brought against contractors over the last two years.
MS. WARD stated that often the lawsuits do not occur in the
first year or two; they often occur "in the fifth or the eighth
year." She added that there are not that many lawsuits in
Alaska, but that the damages in settlement are high and
punitive.
Number 1981
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that he has rental properties
that he has to insure, and this insurance cost has tripled in
the past three years. He understands that to keep building, it
is necessary to keep insurance costs down. He wished her luck.
MS. WARD said she believes there's an increase in builders who
operate without a license because they cannot afford the
liability insurance necessary to get a license. This situation,
she believes, is worse for consumers because they have even less
protection. She added that about 18 percent of the builders [in
the Alaska State Home Builders Association] will go out of
business because they can't afford the liability insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed concern about whether or not
the banks check to see if the contractor has a license before
they make a loan.
MS. WARD replied yes, and added another concern: many owners
hire a builder and the owner is getting the loan and,
consequently, the banks do not check the builder's license.
Number 2063
CHAIR ANDERSON closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
which reads [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 12:
Insert New Section:
Section 2. AS 09.45.893(c) is amended to read:
(c) The notice required by (a) of this section
must be conspicuous and must be in substantially the
following form:
ALASKA LAW AT AS 09.45.881-09.45.899 CONTAINS
IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW BEFORE YOU
MAY FILE A COURT ACTION FOR DEFECTIVE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, OR REMODELING AGAINST THE DESIGNER,
BUILDER, OR REMODELER OF YOUR HOME. WITHIN ONE YEAR
OF THE DISCOVERY OF A DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OR
REMODELING DEFECT, BEFORE YOU FILE A COURT ACTION, YOU
MUST DELIVER TO THE DESIGNER, BUILDER, OR REMODELER A
WRITTEN NOTICE OF ANY DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR
REMODELING CONDITIONS YOU ALLEGE ARE DEFECTIVE IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE YOUR DESIGNER, BUILDER, OR REMODELER
WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN OFFER TO REPAIR OR PAY
FOR THE DEFECTS. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT ANY
OFFER MADE BY THE DESIGNER, BUILDER, OR REMODELER.
THERE ARE STRICT DEADLINES AND PROCEDURES UNDER STATE
LAW. FAILURE TO FOLLOW THEM MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO
FILE A COURT ACTION. ALASKA LAW AT 09.45.895 CONTAINS
LIMITATIONS TO THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES THAT MAY BE
RECOVERED IN A COURT ACTION FOR DEFECTIVE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION OR REMODELING.
Renumber the remaining sections accordingly.
CHAIR ANDERSON objected and requested an explanation of the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated the operative line:
ALASKA LAW AT 09.45.895 CONTAINS LIMITATIONS TO THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES THAT MAY BE RECOVERED IN A COURT
ACTION FOR DEFECTIVE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR
REMODELING.
Number 2163
The committee took an at-ease from 4:06 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER commented on his support of Amendment 1:
If you recall, when the "right to cure" bill was on
the floor last year, Representative Gara had asked
that we include this disclaimer in the contract that
you sign, when you had a new home built or you
purchase. That way, the consumer knows, basically,
what the rules are: that if you have any concerns
with the design or defects, you have to go back to the
builder and give the builder first opportunity to fix
it. If he or she doesn't, then you have other
options. All we're doing here is including on that
disclosure what HB 340 is going to do. In other
words, if you do decide, or do need to go to court,
then this is what you can sue for.
CHAIR ANDERSON removed his objection to Amendment 1.
Number 2230
CHAIR ANDERSON offered a friendly amendment to Amendment 1 for
consistency purposes: add "AS" in front of the "09" so it
references Alaska Statute. He asked Representative Crawford if
it was acceptable to add this friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied in the affirmative.
Number 2240
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that Amendment 1 [as amended] was
adopted.
Number 2258
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered Amendment 2, which reads
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 8:
Following: "defect,"
Insert: "or actual damages that result from the
construction defect"
CHAIR ANDERSON objected to Amendment 2 for purposes of
clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referenced page 1, line 8, and
explained:
The analogy that we were using [is] if you had a
builder build a garage and [he/she] fouled up the
truss system - there was a defect in the truss system,
the garage collapsed, and crushed your car - it also
would pay for your car. That was the amendment:
actual damages, not just the damages that resulted
from the defect.
CHAIR ANDERSON removed his objection and requested a motion to
adopt Amendment 2.
Number 2309
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD moved to adopt Amendment 2 [text
provided previously]. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 2328
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report CSHB 340 [HB 340, as
amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that CS HB340 (L&C) was reported from
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 351-CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTION DEVICES
Number 2347
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 351, "An Act relating to the devices,
including carbon monoxide detection devices, required in
dwellings; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2362
The committee took an at-ease from 4:11 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.
TAPE 04-3, SIDE B
Number 2375
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, one of the sponsors, moved to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 351, Version 23-
LS1325\I, Bannister, 1/23/04, as a work draft. There being no
objection, Version I was before the committee.
Number 2350
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, one of
the sponsors, introduced the changes resulting from the last
committee meeting, citing a cover letter from him and
Representative Gatto that lists the issues addressed in the
proposed CS. Noting that Representative Lynn had taken issue
with the effective date [in the bill], he said the sponsors
felt that it would be too complicated to have various dates
contained in the bill, and they decided to leave it as it is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke about the second issue, the
language found on page 2, lines 16-19. The new language states:
(3) "qualifying dwelling unit" means a
dwelling unit that
(A) contains or is serviced by a
carbon-based-fueled appliance or device that produces
by-products of combustion;
(B) has an attached garage or carport;
or
(C) is adjacent to a parking space;
Number 2231
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG addressed the third issue of the large,
mega-apartment house or hotel with a heating source common to
the whole building. He said:
To understand why we didn't change this, it's
necessary to see how the law works. As you will see,
if you look on page 2, line 13, there are dwelling
units and qualifying dwelling units. Both refer to
each other, for example, on page 1, lines 13 and 14,
and on page 1, lines 5 and 6. They have dwelling
units, but you don't have to have [carbon monoxide
detectors] in the dwelling units unless they're
qualifying dwelling units. The qualifying units are a
sub-category. Dwelling units are defined on page 2,
line 13, in AS 34.03.360. That is the uniform
landlord tenant Act. So, smoke detector and carbon
monoxide detection statutes refer back for the
definition to the uniform landlord and tenant Act. I
have distributed for you the definition, AS 34.03.360,
and paragraph (3) defines dwelling unit.
So, to see what the outer class is, of which this is a
sub-class, you have got to look at dwelling unit. It
means a structure or part of a structure that is used
[he notes a typographical error that needs to be
corrected from "issued" to "is used"] as a home,
residence, or sleeping place, by one person who
maintains a household, or by two or more persons who
maintain a common household, and includes mobile
homes. So, you don't get into the issue of hotels
unless you live there permanently. There are very few
people who live in hotels that are maintained as
households, and those people, the fire marshals felt,
should be covered. So they didn't want to change the
statutes.
Number 2075
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN agreed with most of what Representative
Gruenberg had said, except for the transfer-of-title issue. He
noted the effective date of January 1, 2005, in Version I. He
stated that he is an associate broker in a real estate company
and he believes that a 90-day date to require the installation
of a carbon monoxide detector is reasonable, because the lender
probably wouldn't lend without a detector in place. In
addition, the appraiser looks at it, the title company looks at
it, and there are home inspectors and the board of realtors. He
sees it as a simple matter of sending a simple letter to these
five or six entities, and this would cover notification of the
change in the law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG conceded that he did not have a problem
with that particular amendment, noting that the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee is the first committee of referral,
and that this idea could be dealt with later.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN agreed to prepare an amendment for the bill
when it comes to the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
CHAIR ANDERSON closed public testimony and requested a motion to
move the CS version of HB 351 out of committee.
Number 1893
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved [to report CSHB 351, Version 23-
LS1325\I, Bannister, 1/23/04 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes].
CHAIR ANDERSON, hearing no objections, announced that CSHB
351(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|