MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
Sixty-seventh Session
February 24, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Commerce was called to order by Chairman Gene T. Porter at 3:38 p.m., Wednesday, February 24, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Vice Chairman
Ms. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Rick C. Bennett
Mr. John Bonaventura
Mr. Val Z. Garner
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Ms. Erin Kenny
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Scott Scherer
Ms. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman William A. Petrak, District 18; Assemblyman Robert E. Price, District 17
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Teresa Rankin, Commissioner, Department of Insurance; John Wiles, Advocate for Insurance Customers, Department of Insurance; Jerry J. Zadny, Administrator, Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation; Mark Brown, State Farm Insurance; Donald S. Kwalick, M.D., State Health Officer; Harvey Whittemore, Health Insurance of America; William Prezant, FHP, Inc., Fred Hillerby, Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Hospital Health Plan; Robert Barengo, Insurance of Nevada, Inc.. See also Exhibit B attached hereto.
Chairman Porter informed the committee the standing rules of the committee, adopted at the first meeting, were in conflict with the standing rules of the Assembly and would need to be amended as to Rule number 5 to require a two-thirds majority for committee introduction.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND THE STANDING RULES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE IN THE FORM OF
EXHIBIT C ATTACHED HERETO.
ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
***************
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST TO AMEND NRS 646.055 CONCERNED WITH CIVIL LIABILITY OF A PAWNBROKER AND NRS 647.132 CONCERNED WITH CIVIL LIABILITY OF A SECOND-HAND DEALER.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
***************
Chairman Porter informed the committee of certain requests on behalf of the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association for bill drafts requests.
ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED FOR BILL DRAFT REQUESTS TO AMEND NRS 361 AND NRS 489 AND TO AMEND THE NRS TO ADD A NEW SECTION.
ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Porter advised the committee the Nevada State Contractors Board wished an amendment to the NRS but the specific statute number for which the amendment was requested was unclear.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST RESPONSIVE TO THE NEED OF THE NEVADA STATE CONTRACTORS BOARD.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 91 - Requires notice to named insured of purchase of or increase in life insurance coverage under certain circumstances.
Assemblyman Myrna T. Williams, District 10, stepped down from her seat in the committee to testify in support of AB 91. Mrs. Williams informed the committee the purpose of the bill was to correct a situation in which one person could increase the insurance on the life of another without insured person's knowledge. Proposed bill AB 91 required insurance companies to notify the insured, within 48 hours, of such an increase.
Assemblyman Robert Price, District 17, addressed the committee. Mr. Price advised he had introduced an identical bill in 1987, Assembly Bill 68, which did not pass. He stated he introduced the bill as a result of a case heard the prior year by the Clark County Grand Jury, of which he was the Foreman, and apprised the committee of some of the details of that case.
Mr. Price directed the committee's attention to a newspaper article (Exhibit D) and summarized the contents of the article.
Mr. Price expressed the belief there was no excuse for allowing anyone to take out an insurance policy on another person without notification to that person. He allowed there might be certain exceptions and cited the example of an insured person who had a guardian.
Chairman Porter expressed his understanding of Nevada's present insurability requirement which precluded an individual procuring an insurance policy on the life of another when no fiduciary or pecuniary relationship existed.
Mr. Price responded he was uncertain whether Chairman Porter's understanding was correct.
Chairman Porter inquired of Teresa Rankin, Commissioner, Department of Insurance, if Nevada had such an insurability requirement and thereafter advised Mr. Price that he, Chairman Porter, was accurate in his understanding.
Mrs. Williams stated she understood, the insurability requirement notwithstanding, it was still possible to increase the amount of a policy without the insured being aware it was done.
Chairman Porter indicated to Mrs. Williams his desire to be certain the committee understood what was to be accomplished by the bill. He stated the insurability requirement was still in existence; the bill would merely require notification to the beneficiary the policy was in existence and/or had been changed.
Mrs. Williams responded it was not the beneficiary who
would be notified but the person whose life was insured.
Chairman Porter stated he stood corrected.
Teresa Rankin, Commissioner, Department of Insurance, addressed the committee in support of AB 91. She informed the committee Utah had a similar statute, with nearly identical language, passed in 1986. She said the exception in "a couple of states" was the absence of language, such as the language in subsection 1, specifying such a requirement for group insurance. She explained, "Two reasons - one is if you've got people moving in and out of the group, like an employer group or something, but also if any of you have bank policies or travel a lot, you know you get a baggage - blanket - baggage policy or you might get a free $1,000 life insurance coverage from your credit union or something. That... would require, if it was increased, that individual noticed." Ms. Rankin indicated the committee might want to exclude group coverage.
Following a colloquy between Chairman Porter and Ms. Rankin, concerned with the reference to "group" on line 4 of the proposed bill, Ms. Rankin suggested adding to subsection 3 an exception, to wit that it did not apply to group. She stated there was some litigation with regard to group policy in the state of Georgia.
Ms. Augustine inquired of Mrs. Williams as to why blanket health insurance was being discussed as well as group life insurance. Mrs. Williams expressed an assumption the language concerning blanket health insurance existed in the statute at the time AB 91 was drafted and the bill drafter merely picked up the existing language.
Mr. Scherer asked Mrs. Williams if it was her intention to require an insurance company to send notice to a minor child living at home if the parent of the minor child increased the amount of life insurance on the minor. Mrs. Williams responded it might be necessary in some cases.
Mr. Heller stated his position that a parent retained responsibility for the life insurance policy of a minor until the minor reached age 18 and expressed his uncertainty the conflict spoken of earlier existed. Mrs. Williams stated she presumed there were good reasons for the bill drafter to have inserted the language and her assumption it was inserted for the kinds of cases she discussed earlier.
Chairman Porter inquired whether Mrs. Williams had any opposition to exempting group health policies. Mrs. Williams responded she had none.
Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 91.
ASSEMBLY BILL 148 - Requires reduction of premium for policy of insurance for motor vehicle equipped with air bag.
Assemblyman William A. Petrak, District 18, addressed the committee in support of AB 148. Mr. Petrak directed the committee's attention to lines 3, 4 and 5 of AB 148. He indicated the bill provided a 5 percent discount be granted by an insurance provider to an insurer a of vehicle with one air bag and a
7 1/2 percent discount to an insurer of a vehicle with 2 air bags.
Mr. Petrak testified with respect to the provisions of his personal automobile policy (Exhibit E) and remarked on certain discounts he received and the amount of premiums he paid for various types of coverage.
Mr. Petrak stated, based on studies made thus far, air bags saved between 20 and 30 lives. He cited savings on insurance premiums granted by certain insurance providers based on air bags in vehicles, and expressed his feeling the people of Nevada were entitled to discounts of this type.
Chairman Porter stated he understood the liability portion of an insurance policy dealt with an insured's ability to pay for damage caused to another as opposed to uninsured motorist coverage in which an individual without insurance caused damage to the insured party. He then inquired how an air bag would affect an insured's ability to be a better driver with respect to the insured's liability or risk factor vis-a-vis third parties. Mr. Petrak responded the 20 to 30 percent of vehicle operators with airbags would survive to handle any liability they incurred as a result of an accident.
Chairman Porter addressed the question to Mr. Petrak, "So you're looking at it from the reverse side of the equation?" Mr. Petrak responded Chairman Porter was correct and added the uninsured motorist was also very important.
Mr. Bonaventura expressed his support for the concept of the bill. He pointed out the bill stated there was no fiscal note. He informed the committee the state charged an insurance premium tax on all insurance premiums in the state and a 5 percent discount on the total of those taxes would probably cost the state millions of dollars in tax revenue. He suggested those members of the committee who were also members of the Ways and Means Committee would have better figures. Mr. Bonaventura suggested deleting the word "total" and inserting the word "medical" on line 11 of AB 148. He inquired if Mr. Petrak believed there should be a fiscal note on AB 148. Mr. Petrak responded the fiscal note was "no" on local government, and on the second part, which affected the state or the industrial insurance, the answer was "no".
Further discussion was held regarding premium discounts by Mr. Bonaventura and Mr. Petrak.
Mr. Petrak expressed ways in which he believed AB 148 would stimulate the economy in Nevada.
John F. Wiles, J.D., Advocate for Insurance Customers, State of Nevada, Department of Insurance spoke regarding quantification of potential savings to Nevada insurance customers. Mr. Wiles indicated, based on assumptions as to the number of vehicles in Nevada containing airbags, the number of registered vehicles, and a premium of $750, savings to Nevada insurance customers as a result of AB 148 as proposed would be approximately $1 million. Mr. Wiles said one simple justification for a reduction of premiums based upon airbags was that airbags worked.
Mr. Wiles commented on the 5 percent reduction proposed in the bill. He expressed concern the percentage was either too great, in which case the customer would pay more than the risk to the insurance companies, or too small, in which instance some customers would subsidize drivers with airbags. He stated the bill, as written, was inflexible, and if the bill was passed, no correction could be made until the next legislative session.
Mr. Scherer expressed his understanding of Mr. Wiles statements regarding the percentage of reduction of premiums and inquired of Mr. Wiles if his understanding was correct. Mr. Wiles replied affirmatively and cited an example.
Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Wiles how common air bags were on older cars. Mr. Wiles responded he understood the first advent of air bags was approximately 1987, at which time they were optional, and that he believed in 1990 air bags became a more mandatory requirement as a passive restraint device. He stated each year would see an increase in vehicles equipped with air bags.
Mr. Scherer asked if it was not true that air bags were far more common on newer vehicles. Mr. Wiles replied "Absolutely.".
Teresa Rankin, Commissioner, Department of Insurance, provided the committee with a chart setting forth the top seven insurers, their market share, and the discount currently provided by each for airbags or passive restraints (Exhibit F). With respect to motor vehicle liability insurance,
Ms. Rankin pointed out that AB 148 provided the discount be applied to the total amount of the premium. She advised, due to a rate roll-back, the Department of Insurance had requested an Attorney General's opinion (Exhibit G). Ms. Rankin stated "liability" meant the mandatory liability coverage required to be purchased.
Chairman Porter asked, "What rate roll-back?", to which
Ms. Rankin answered "SB 220". Chairman Porter inquired if SB 220 was the bill declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Rankin confirmed it was.
Ms. Rankin expressed her opinion the idea of a discount was excellent but pointed out the amount of discount suggested in AB 148 was lower than the discount presently offered by most insurers. She suggested the percentage amount be eliminated from AB 148. Ms. Rankin expressed concern that AB 148, as drafted, created a problem because the discount came off the total premium rather than first party coverages of medical payments or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, which she felt were the coverages which should be targeted.
Chairman Porter referred to Exhibit F and inquired if the discounts applied only to "med-pay" coverage. Ms. Rankin replied affirmatively. She further stated Prudential was the only company the Department of Insurance was able to find which offered the discount on coverages other than "med-pay".
Chairman Porter asked Ms. Rankin for clarification of the discount offered by Prudential. Ms. Rankin responded her notes reflected Prudential offered the discount for bodily injury liability.
Mrs. Williams asked Ms. Rankin what impact she thought AB 148 could have on the insurance premium tax. Ms. Rankin cited various figures in response.
Mr. Mark Brown, representing State Farm Insurance, testified in opposition to AB 148. He informed the committee of State Farm Insurance's position against mandates which it felt would eventually increase the cost of insurance. He stated State Farm voluntarily offered a discount, ranging from 10 to 40 percent, on automobiles and insureds that have passive restraint systems. He commented that Assemblyman Petrak's company was in a unique position. He advised State Farm's main opposition to AB 148 related to the fact the entire reduction applied to the total premium, and requested comprehensive insurance and liability insurance be removed from the bill.
Mr. Brown expressed State Farm's theory concerning the price of insurance in a competitive market as opposed to a non-competitive market and cited examples. He advised that
18 percent of State Farm's customers took advantage of the voluntary discount. He cited another example of a voluntary effort by State Farm Insurance to encourage the use of passive restraint systems. Mr. Brown indicated he agreed with previous testimony the prescribed mandate as to percentage of discount should be removed from the bill and an actuarial analysis utilized to determine what the discount would be.
Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 148 and referred
AB 148 to a subcommittee comprised of Assemblymen Kenny, Augustine and Bonaventura, to be chaired by Assemblyman Kenny. The Chairman requested the subcommittee examine the entire crash-worthiness aspect in the changing automotive mechanics field and provide him a report on the impact on premiums and what carriers were doing regarding discounts.
ASSEMBLY BILL 164 - requires that benefits paid for health care services which are provided by governmental agency must be paid at rate not less than that paid to nongovernmental providers of similar services.
Jerry J. Zadny, Administrator, Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation (hereafter referred to as "the Division"), spoke in favor of AB 164. He informed the committee insurers sometimes tried to avoid paying the full covered cost of a Division service by maintaining the insurer was liable only for the amount its insured would pay on a sliding fee scale. Mr. Zadny stated the sliding fee scale was not intended to benefit insurance companies but, rather, those of limited means. He said AB 164 would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against the Division and other governmental service providers. He cited figures as to amounts recovered annually from insurance companies by certain governmental agencies.
Chairman Porter asked what services Mr. Zadny's agency provided for which it was afterward reimbursed. Mr. Zadny responded the Division was obligated by statute to bill the approximate cost of every service delivered.
A discussion ensued between Chairman Porter and Mr. Zadny regarding who determined the charges for services, who billed the customer for the services, and how many of the charges were paid. Mr. Zadny indicated most of the bills were paid.
He explained if a customer was insured, the insurer might pay a portion of the bill with the customer being responsible for any residual portion not covered by insurance.
In response to a further question by Chairman Porter,
Mr. Zadny indicated an uninsured customer would be obligated to pay the full amount of the charges or provide verification of income showing eligibility to pay a lesser amount on a sliding fee scale.
Chairman Porter asked if insurance companies undercut the Division at present. Mr. Zadny explained insurance companies, approximately 3 years previously, attempted to take the position the companies could stand in the shoes of the insured and rely on the insured's income to utilize the sliding fee scale and, as a result, pay a lesser amount than the full cost of services covered by the insured's policy.
Chairman Porter expressed confusion as to the meaning of Mr. Zadny's last statement. Mr. Zadny cited an example, and thereafter discussions were held between Chairman Porter and Mr. Zadny concerning the sliding fee scale.
Mr. Zadny expressed the opinion if a statute existed to prevent insurance companies from standing in the shoes of the insured or taking the position they could exempt themselves from paying for governmental services, it would do the state a service. He explained that the Department of Human Resources had built its budget relying on insurance recoveries.
Chairman Porter asked how the major medical carrier which took the position it need not pay for governmental services arrived at that conclusion. Mr. Zadny responded, according to the carrier's correspondence, the carrier believed its position to be intrinsic to the contract between it and the insured.
Additional discussions were held between the Chair and
Mr. Zadney with regard to the carrier's position it need not pay for governmental services provided to its insured.
Chairman Porter asked if Mr. Zadny had taken the carrier's position to the Insurance Commissioner. Mr. Zadny replied it had been taken both to the Attorney General's office and to the Insurance Commissioner and the Division had obtained support from both sectors.
Chairman Porter then asked if the Division had sought an opinion. Mr. Zadny replied no opinion was sought, merely support in advising the carrier its position was not permitted.
Chairman Porter asked what response had been made by the Insurance Commissioner and/or the Attorney General's office.
Mr. Zadny indicated the response from the Attorney General and the Insurance Commissioner was to the effect the carrier could not do that.
Chairman Porter asked if the carrier was notified of the Attorney General's opinion, and Mr. Zadny replied correspondence went directly from the offices of the Attorney General and the Insurance Commissioner to the carrier.
Mr. Zadny stated the carrier had continued to pay the bills.
In response to an inquiry from Chairman Porter as to the necessity for this legislation, Mr. Zadny expressed the opinion such a bill would be a clear indication to insurance companies the State of Nevada intends those companies to pay for services rendered by governmental entities.
Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she did not understand Section 4 of AB 164 regarding the "HMO" and asked what was the impact of the section. A colloquy was held between Ms. Giunchigliani and Mr. Zadny.
In response to an inquiry from Ms. Giunchigliani, Chairman Porter asked Mr. Paul Mouritsen, the committee's research analyst, to confer with Ms. Giunchigliani.
Mrs. Williams spoke concerning the often costly care the state is obligated to provide for people with certain needs. She contended when a person was insured at the rate of 80 percent, if a carrier did not pay at the rate of 80 percent, the carrier was cheating the taxpayers. She stated the taxpayers, in the end, must pay for the services at the rate of 80 percent.
Mr. Humke asked Mr. Zadny for a breakdown of the sources of the $446,000 collected annually by the Division and the smaller amount collected by D.C.S.F.
Mr. Zadny replied the majority of the funds were from rural clinics, with some from the Division's inpatient facilities. He indicated, in both instances, persons using the facilities often had insurance coverage. He further stated it was not uncommon for individuals with serious mental illness to exhaust their insurance coverage over the first year or so of illness, after which such individuals inevitably came to the Division and their treatment was then entirely a cost either to the State of Nevada Medicaid or to Medicare.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Humke, Mr. Zadny advised approximately 25 percent of patients handled by the Division in rural Nevada were children, the Division also had several children at Desert Developmental Center and a couple of children at Sierra Developmental Center, with the balance of cases being treated by DCFS.
Mr. Humke asked if there was a priority regarding from whom payment was sought to which Mr. Zadny responded the person receiving services was ultimately responsible for the bill.
Mr. Humke inquired if the Division had a policy of targeting persons with health insurance first or Medicaid first. Mr. Zadny advised the Division's priority was those persons most severely impaired, and those individuals typically did not have insurance. He further stated the last dollar drawn upon by the Division in collecting revenues was state appropriations, with all other sources of payment being exhausted first.
Mr. Humke asked if it was correct the Division pursued funds other than state appropriations because it was a policy of the legislature for the Division to do so. Mr. Zadny replied the law required the Division to collect or attempt to collect the approximate cost of it's services, further all delinquent accounts were referred to the Attorney General's office, and when sufficient amounts were involved court action was taken.
Donald S. Kwalick, M.D., State Health Officer, State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources, Division of Health, summarized for the committee his prepared statement
(Exhibit H). He expressed concern with the term "average" as it appeared in lines 5, 13, and 21 on page 1 and line 5 on page 2 of AB 164; he found the term imprecise. Mr. Kwalick stated the law should preempt or supersede the indemnity coverage arrangements between a payor and a beneficiary for out of pocket expenses with respect to publicly funded clinics; if it did not, the insurer would ultimately pay nothing. He expressed further concern AB 164 covered only state and local agencies and indicated there were entitles funded by federal government which needed to be included.
Mr. Kwalick also expressed the opinion the governmental provider of health service should have the opportunity to bid to provide PBO or HMO services below the "average" provided for in AB 164.
Chairman Porter inquired how the governmental agency could bid when it had already billed the client. Mr. Kwalick clarified his comment regarding bidding for services.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired how an insurance company knew an individual had been given a sliding scale rate and further asked whether, if such rate was being issued based on income rather than whether an individul had or did not have full coverage, the problem was "on our end". Discussions ensued between Mr. Kwalick and Ms. Giunchigliani with regard to the issue.
Mrs. Williams commented on the fact the recovery rate for services would determine whether or not certain services could be offered and the premise those who could pay did so in order that those who could not pay could obtain services.
Harvey Whittemore of the law firm of Lionel, Sawyer and Collins, representing Health Insurance of America, spoke in opposition to AB 164. He stated typically health insurance contracts were indemnification contracts and the purpose of
AB 164 was to prevent insurance benefits from being reduced because a governmental agency adopted a schedule of fees. He suggested it might be appropriate to bill an insurance company before imposing a sliding scale of fees. Mr. Whittemore expressed the belief AB 164 did not accomplish what it was intended to do and went far beyond what was necessary. He suggested AB 164 created a system in which the insurance company must guess as to the amount of payment required and changed the entire concept of insurance, one of indemnification.
In response to a question by Chairman Porter concerning what percentage of a bill for services would be paid by an insurance company, based upon the facility at which services were rendered, Mr. Whittemore replied the insurance company would pay 80 percent of the amount the insured must pay or such other percentage as set forth in the insurance contract. He stated the insurance company's obligation under the contract was to reimburse the insured only for the amount the insured was actually obligated to pay. He opined the problem arose when a sliding scale was utilized and the insured's obligation to pay was reduced. Mr. Whittemore said he understood the state's concern, from a financing perspective, about the scope and quality of service which the state could provide and the number of people it could serve on a yearly basis, but he felt AB 164 suggested the state look to the insurance company and he was not certain it was the correct thing to do.
Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Whittemore if the import of his comments was an insured individual's insurance company be billed prior to advising such individual of the possibility of applying a sliding scale. Mr. Whittemore responded he believed the problem would be avoided by applying the sliding scale only to individuals without insurance.
A brief discussion was held between Mrs. Williams and Mr. Whittemore, after which Mrs. Williams referred to the earlier remarks of Ms. Giunchigliani and stated it appeared the matter being discussed was a billing problem.
Mr. Whittemore reiterated "our member institutions" indemnified only the insured, not the state. He stated it was inappropriate to say carriers must break their existing contracts.
Mr. William Prezant of the law firm of Prezant, Mollath and Costello, on behalf of GHP, Inc., next addressed the committee. Mr. Prezant explained a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) put together a network of providers with which it contracted. He stated the language in section 4 of AB 164 which provides benefits provided by an agency of government be paid at a rate not less than the average rate paid to a nongovernmental provider of the same health care, as written, could require an HMO to pay to a governmental agency a rate other than the rate established by its contractual relationship with the agency. Mr. Prezant expressed the belief Dr. Kwalick's suggestion to require an HMO to enter into an agreement with the state to provide services at a rate higher than the lowest rate bid by another offerer of those services would work to the disadvantage of members of the HMO. He also stated his feeling the quality and cost effectiveness of health care provided by an HMO would be impacted if the HMO was required to take in the state or any other local government agency even though the state or agency did not offer the best price or the best quality of care.
Fred Hillerby, on behalf of Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Hospital Health Plan, spoke, expanding on an example utilized by Mr. Prezant in his remarks to describe the impact of AB 164 on HMO providers.
Robert Barengo, representing Humana Insurance of Nevada, Inc., provided a short example of the effect of billing an insurance company after the application of a sliding scale and the effect of billing without first applying a sliding scale. He indicated he believed it was the billing practice which needed to be resolved.
Chairman Porter referred AB 164 to a subcommittee, to consist of Assemblymen Scherer and Giunchigliani, and then closed the hearing on AB 164.
ASSEMBLY BILL 91 - Requires notice to named insured of purchase of or increase in life insurance coverage under certain circumstances.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS AB 91.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AB 91 BY DELETEING THE REFERENCE TO GROUP POLICIES FROM THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
Discussions were held regarding the notification requirements of AB 91.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO INCLUDE IN HER PRIOR MOTION TO AMEND AB 91 AN AMENDMENT ON PAGE 2, LINE 3, TO STRIKE THE WORD "DELIVERED" AND TO INSERT IN PLACE THEREOF THE WORD "MAILED" AND FURTHER TO ADD TO SUBSECTION 3 THE WORDS "EXCEPT FOR GROUP LIFE".
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Porter assigned AB 91 to Mrs. Williams to present on the floor of the Assembly.
Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________
SARA J. KAUFMAN
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Commerce
February 24,, 1993
Page: 1