Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/27/2003 01:35 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSHB 9(FIN)am - HOME INSPECTORS/CONTRACTORS
CHAIR BUNDE announced CSHB 9(FIN)am to be up for consideration.
MS. HEATHER NOBREGA, staff to Representative Rokeberg, sponsor,
said she would answer questions, but there were none.
SENATOR DAVIS moved to adopt the Senate Labor and Commerce
committee substitute to CSHB 9(FIN)am, version U. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR STEVENS moved to pass SCS CSHB 9(L&C) from committee
with individual recommendations.
SENATORS SEEKINS and FRENCH arrived at 1:44 p.m.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that he had been notified that other
people wanted to testify.
MR. TERRY DUSZYNSKI, Fairbanks building inspector since 1978,
said when this bill was introduced, it was about providing
proper qualifications for home inspectors, insurance and
continuing education. However, this bill seems to have gotten
way out of control as far as what it's trying to accomplish. It
is tying to dictate how an inspection is to be done it but
doesn't provide everything that is necessary. On page 6, under
existing homes, the provisions do not specify what code they
refer to. Another concern is subsection (d) on page 6, which
specifies that the inspection is valid for 180 days after the
date the home inspector signs and dates the report. However, it
doesn't keep home inspectors from being sued after six months.
On page 10 the home inspector is held liable for two years on a
new construction, yet the builder has only a one-year warranty
on the house. He thought that was a little out of line.
Page 18 contains a list of components of a residence that the
inspector is liable for and includes built-in appliances, such
as dishwashers and built-in ranges. He thought it goes too far
in defining what inspectors are supposed to do.
He said the language on page 20 is of most concern as it says
that inspectors shall determine whether the construction
conforms to relevant provisions of the construction codes of the
municipality or of the state building code, as applicable, at
each of the following stages of construction. There is no state
building code for residential construction. The State of Alaska
has adopted uniform building codes, but only for four-plexes and
above. Now, home inspectors are going to be held liable for
something that there is no state law to follow. All of the
cities have different codes. Inspectors need to know what
standards they will be held to when doing an inspection.
MR. DAVE OWENS, Owens Inspection Service, said he has not
supported the bill in the past, but he could if three amendments
were adopted. One would be to consolidate and create an Alaska
state residential building code and regulations for commercial
building inspectors. He said this bill does not address the
relationship between real estate agents and third-party
inspectors. Liability is the biggest problem that most
inspectors have. If this bill passes with this level of
liability, a good percentage of the inspectors on the Alaska
housing roster that perform new construction will go out of
business.
MS. CAROL PERKINS, Active Inspections, stated opposition to HB 9
and said the bill would open inspectors up to a lot of
"lawyering." She pointed out the building department has a
grievance process and the authority to adopt codes and make
amendments so that the codes are adjustable to a local
situation.
MS. NOBREGA said the first concern is addressed on page 6, (b).
She explained that the bill allows for a preinspection document,
which talks about the expectations and what the home inspector
will be doing, which can vary. This also applies to appliances.
A home inspector might not look at appliances according to the
preinspection document. She pointed out the 180-day validity of
the report means that its accuracy is valid only for that period
of time. She told members the provisions on page 10 for bringing
a claim, one-year for an existing home and two-years for a new
home, are from the statute of limitations of when a lawsuit can
be brought. On page 20, the state building code language was
inserted to cover the possible eventuality of getting one.
MS. NOBREGA said Mr. Owens' concerns about liability are
partially covered in a compromise. Because the bill repeals the
AHFC provision, section 41, other provisions were inserted to
limit inspectors' liability. One limits the length of the
report's validity, another limits the one and two year period,
and another limits who can sue them.
Repealing section 41 does not open inspectors up to frivolous
lawsuits. Now, a homeowner can only sue for gross negligence or
intentional misconduct. Section 41 will allow a homeowner to sue
for regular negligence and damage. The standard under that
provision is very, very high.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked her for her explanation and noted that a
motion was pending. He asked for the roll to be called. SENATORS
FRENCH, SEEKINS, STEVENS, DAVIS and BUNDE voted yea and SCS CSHB
9 (L&C) moved out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|