MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR
Sixty-seventh Session
April 1, 1993
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:30 a.m., on April 1, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator Ann O'Connell
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Lori L. Brown
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Beverly Willis, Committee Secretary
Brian Davie, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association
Kenny Gregg, McCarren Auto Body
Terri Rankin, Commissioner, Insurance Division, State of Nevada
John Sarb, Administrator, Child & Family Services
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Nevada
Marie Soldo, Lobbyist, Health Plan of Nevada, Inc., and
Sierra Health & Life Insurance Company
David Guinan, Nevada Insurance Guaranty Association (NIGA)
Joanne Nolan-Tackett, Vice President, Communication Workers of America, Local 9413
Janice Gunderson, Lobbyist, Communication Workers of America
Craig B. Hansen, President, Communication Workers of America,
Local 9413
John F. Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission
Terry Page, Director, Regulatory Operations, Public Service Commission
Darryl J. Young, Staff Auditor, Public Service Commission
Margaret McMillan, Business Affairs Manager, Central Telephone Company of Nevada
Brian Herr, Nevada Bell Company of Nevada
Jim Endrees, Assistant Vice President, Law & Government Affairs, American Telephone & Telegraph, State of Nevada
Chairman Townsend announced that Senator Neal had withdrawn Senate Bill (S.B.) 141.
SENATE BILL 141: Requires that portion of money paid by customer to privately owned public utility for services or products be used to purchase stock in public utility on behalf of customer.
SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SENATE BILL 141.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY SENATOR O'CONNELL
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
* * * * *
Senator Townsend opened the hearing on S.B. 30.
SENATE BILL 30: Revises provisions relating to payment by insurer for repair of motor vehicle covered by policy of insurance.
First to testify was Senator Leonard V. Nevin, Washoe County District 2, Sparks, Nevada. Senator Nevin explained the reason for the bill was that oftentimes after ordering parts for repair of damaged cars when said repair has been approved by the insurance company, the car owner is given a check to cover repairs; spends the insurance money for something else and the auto repair shop is left with parts neither paid for, nor needed. Senator Nevin introduced Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association. Mr. Capurro explained very often when the process has been implemented to repair the vehicle, the insurance company's appraiser has indicated how much is covered by the insurance company, parts are ordered, an insurance check covering the repairs is given to the owner of the car, then the owner decides not to have the car repaired, and spends the money on something else. At this point, the auto repair shop has parts it doesn't need; may have to return and may even have to pay an ordering fee for the unused parts. This situation can occur when the owner may have a small amount of equity in the car and the damage to the car is a larger dollar amount than the equity in the car. At this point, if the owner takes the repair check and spends it on something else, the auto body shop has a lien on the car and the finance company where it was financed has a lien. Now there are two individuals, who shouldn't have to resolve this situation, left with that responsibility.
Mr. Capurro stated that basically the reason for S.B. 30 was to eliminate these problems. He did have some proposed amendments to offer.
Mr. Capurro went on to explain the changes he hoped would be incorporated into the bill. These changes have been drafted as Amendment 217.
Senator O'Connell, Senator Lowden, Senator McGinness and Mr. Capurro held a discussion on whether or not checks for the repair, should be made out to both the repair shop and the insured; to the insured; or to the repair shop.
Next to testify was Kenny Gregg, McCarren Auto Body, who reiterated that his business had many of the same problems Mr. Capurro talked about. Mr. Gregg went on to say that many times if a check is issued directly to the owner of the car, it might be taken to a an unlicensed repair shop and the repairs may be done incorrectly. In answer to Senator Nevin's question of how often they are stuck with a car, Mr Gregg noted at least once a month.
Mr. Capurro noted he had been authorized by John Sande, Nevada Bankers Association, to indicate the bankers association was in support of this bill.
Senator Townsend asked Terri Rankin, Commissioner, Insurance Division, State of Nevada, if the Insurance Division has authority to penalize insurance companies who did not issue repair checks appropriately. Ms. Rankin replied that only in very rare cases would this be possible. Senator Townsend went on to state that one of the main reasons for this bill was to accelerate the repair process time.
Senator McGinness expressed concern over the fact that wording in the law might not cover mechanical problems, or perhaps some type of vandalism. Mr. Capurro said that strictly mechanical problems would not be covered by the law. Ms. Rankin noted that situations of this sort very likely were covered by comprehensive insurance.
In answer to Senator Brown's query, Mr. Capurro stated that most definitely, repair shops could be shut down, if work was not done properly. There was further discussion by Senator Townsend reiterating one of the main purposes of S.B. 30 was to keep better control of repair shops.
There was further discussion between Senator McGinness, Ms. Rankin and Mr. Capurro regarding whether or not limiting the wording in the bill to "licensed body shop" might eliminate mechanics, or perhaps even other types of repair shops. Mr. Capurro suggested the wording be changed to "from any garage or licensed body shop," if that would solve the problem. Senator Nevin concurred.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO PASS S.B. 30 WITH AMENDMENT 217, AND ALLOWING ON PAGE 1, LINE 5, TO INCLUDE GARAGE.
SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 30 and opened the hearing on S.B. 83.
SENATE BILL 83: Requires specified policies of insurance that provide coverage for birth of child to provide coverage for birth of child who is adopted by insured under certain circumstances.
John Sarb, Administrator, Child & Family Services, came forward to testify, saying this bill originated in an interim committee at the request of private child placing agencies. Some of these agencies have experienced problems paying for birth costs of adopted children. He stated the intent was to allow the insurance of the adoptive parent to pay for birth costs of children they adopt. Senator O'Connell, Senator Brown and Mr. Sarb discussed exactly what would be entailed as far as insurance coverage was concerned. Mr. Sarb noted coverage that applied would be coverage that covered the adopting parent as if they were to have delivered the child naturally. Senator Lowden, Senator O'Connell, Mr. Sarb and Ms. Rankin discussed the ramifications of what might happen if insurance was paid and the adoption was not completed.
At this time, Senator Townsend introduced written testimony from Senator Diana Glomb (Exhibit C) on S.B. 83, stating her support.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, introduced Exhibit D State Rankings Using "Adoption Option Index" From the National Committee For Adoption. Ms. Hansen went on to explain this exhibit. She stated she had concerns with mandating insurance coverage, but that she was in favor of the concept of S.B. 83. She noted that things still needed to be done to encourage adoption, and special needs adoption also needed to be encouraged. A discussion between Senator Townsend, Senator O'Oconnell, Mr. Sarb and Ms. Hansen brought out the fact that there was a 5-year wait for healthy white infants, but that older children or special needs children were almost always available. Senator Lowden, Mr. Sarb and Ms. Hansen went on to discuss problems and risks associated with paying for births. Mr. Sarb noted he did not know of any cases where anyone had ever failed to adopt because they would have to pay for the birth. He went on to say there was a risk involved, since after paying for the birth, the natural mother might decide to keep the baby.
Senator Brown asked what would happen without the proposed law if the natural mother did not have any health insurance and did not meet standards for Medicaid; would she would have to pay for the birth herself. Mr. Sarb replied it might be very difficult to find someone to pay for the birth, under certain circumstances.
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Nevada testified that as soon as a child was placed in an adoptive home, insurance coverage was begun. Ms. Rankin making reference to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 689B.033, stated that adoption was effective the third day of life. Thus, the infant who might need an extended hospital stay in the hospital, would be covered as a newly born child, to the adoptive parents.
Marie Soldo, Lobbyist, Health Plan of Nevada, Inc. and Sierra Health & Life Insurance Company noted some technical aspects about which she had concerns. Ms. Saldo stated she felt whatever was done would have to be within policies that exist. Senator Townsend wanted to know would there be coverage for a birth if the adoptive parents were covered. Ms. Saldo replied the contracts would have to be adhered to, and at this time she did not think there would be coverage. Senator Townsend announced that a subcommittee for Title 57, made up of Senator Townsend, Senator Shaffer and Senator Brown would work out some of these technical problems.
Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 83 and opened the hearing on S.B. 237.
SENATE BILL 237: Makes various changes relating to Insurance Guaranty Association
David Guinan, Nevada Insurance Guaranty Association (NIGA) presented Exhibit E, a letter regarding S.B. 237.
Mr. Guinan observed the purpose of S.B. 237 was to fine tune some sections of Chapter 687A of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS); the chapter governing NIGA. Mr. Guinan went on to interpret Exhibit E. Senator Townsend suggested that Mr. Guinan have his proposed amendment drafted and bring it back to the committee. Ms. Rankin brought up the fact that the proposed amendment would have a fiscal impact on the state General Fund.
Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 237 and opened the hearing on S.B. 288.
SENATE BILL 288: Requires telephone companies to provide access to human operator.
Joanne Nolan-Tackett, Vice President, Communication Workers of America, Local 9413, presented a statement to the committee (Exhibit F). Ms. Nolan-Tackett stated her organization was very concerned about this issue. It was felt that technology in the future could be such that there would be little if any easy access to human operators. Voice recognition is being implemented in many areas and there are great concerns if in an emergency it would be extremely difficult to contact a live operator. Senator Lowden inquired if it was thought there would be elimination of live operators in Nevada in the immediate future, to which Ms. Nolan-Tackett replied "no."
Janice Gunderson, Lobbyist, Communication Workers of America was next to speak. Ms. Gunderson stated their organization was not trying to dictate how companies should run their operations, or how they should implement technology. Ms. Gunderson did express concern for emergency situations where only a live operator can be of help.
Craig B. Hansen, President, Communication Workers of America, Local 9413, stated he would be happy to answer technical questions on equipment; on how reduction of operators has transpired over the past few years; also the role operators play today versus what role operators played a number of years ago. Answering Senator Lowden's question regarding problems that might arise, i.e., with children who were not able to follow involved instructions, Mr. Hanson maintained he did not see a technology change in dialing practice in order to reach an operator.
John F. Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission (PSC), Terry Page, Director, Regulatory Operations, Public Service Commission and Darryl J. Young, Staff Auditor, Public Service Commission, came forward to state their views. Mr. Mendoza said the PSC staff felt this law was unnecessary at this time. He felt there were already laws in force to cover this situation. Mr. Mendoza noted this had already been addressed in Docket 918022, in February 1992. Mr. Page explained the process for handling complaints received by the Communication Workers. Senator Townsend asked for an explanation on Docket 918022. Mr. Young responded.
Mr. Mendoza added to the explanation of Docket 918022 for the record:
We believe that it is in the public interest for people who step up to a public or semi-public phone to be able to call a live operator, call 911, and make a local call for a quarter.
Again the purpose of these requirements is to alleviate a public safety concern and fulfill, what we believe to be are reasonable customer expectations with regard to public or semi-public phones.
Mr. Mendoza explained, in answer to a question from Senator Brown, that these dockets could be changed as the need arises, perhaps even changing the rule itself.
Margaret McMillan, Business Affairs Manager, Central Telephone Company of Nevada, (Centel) stated that currently, Centel has no plans to eliminate access to operators. Brian Herr, Nevada Bell Company of Nevada, concurred with Ms. McMillan's testimony. Mr. Herr, did, however, express a few concerns regarding S.B. 288.
Jim Endrees, Assistant Vice President, Law & Government Affairs, American Telephone & Telegraph, State of Nevada supports the Public Service Commission position, as well as Nevada Bell's point of view. Mr. Endrees felt the law was unnecessary since there were already sufficient rules, regulations and procedures.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
11:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Beverly Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
April 1, 1993
Page 1