ASSEMBLY INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
THIS IS THE JUNE TWENTY SEVENTH.
TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN HEARING.
WE FIVE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
IT'S MISTER PAN HERE MISTER
PANTS HERE WILL TAKE THESE IN.
IT IS SIGNED AN ORDER DIFFERENT
IN THE INNER JACKSON CENTER
JACKSON'S FIRST SENATE JACKSON
SIGNED IN FIRST WELCOME SENATOR.
LET'S ESTABLISH A QUORUM REAL
QUICKLY HERE IF WE COULD CALL
ROLE TRACY [inaudible]
DALY [inaudible]
HERE [inaudible]
MAYES [inaudible]
HERE [inaudible]
BIGELOW [inaudible]
CABALLERO [inaudible]
CALDERON [inaudible]
CHECK [inaudible] TO COOLEY
[inaudible]
COOPER [inaudible]
HERE [inaudible]
FRAZIER UNDER [inaudible]
GIPSON [inaudible]
GRAYSON [inaudible]
HARPER.
YOU DID GREAT.
ALRIGHT WE HAVE A QUORUM.
AND PLEASE PROCEED SENATOR THANK
YOU MISTER CHAIR AND GOOD
MORNING MEMBERS.
I AM VERY PLEASED TO PRESENT TO
S. B. NINE SEVENTEEN A BILL THAT
CLARIFIES.
EXISTING CALIFORNIA INSURANCE
LAW BY REAFFIRMING.
THAT AN INSURANCE POLICY SHELL
COVER LOSS OR DAMAGE RESULTING
FROM A MUD FLOW.
OR SIMILAR EVENT IF THE MUD FLOW
WAS ITSELF.
BECAUSE BY ANOTHER COVERED PERIL.
SUCH AS FIRE.
IN THE OF EARLY HOURS OF JANUARY
NINTH TWENTY EIGHTEEN A ONYX THE
INEXPLICABLE ABSOLUTELY.
A DEVASTATING A MUD FLOW RIPPED
THROUGH.
THE COASTAL COMMUNITY OF MAMA
SETO NEAR SANTA BARBARA IN MY
DISTRICT INFECTED A MILE FROM
WHERE I LIVE AND HAVE FOR MANY
YEARS.
KILLING TWENTY THREE RESIDENTS.
INCLUDING A TWO YEAR OLD AND A
NUMBER OF CHILDREN.
AS WELL AS PEOPLE I KNEW.
AND SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED AND
DESTROYED ALMOST 10% OF THEIR
COMMUNITIES HOMES INCLUDING THE
HOMES OF SEVERAL OF MY VERY DEAR
PERSONAL FRIENDS.
THE MUD FLOW RESULTED WHEN
SIGNIFICANT RANGE.
AT TIMES REACHING THE RATE OF
HALF AN INCH IN FIVE MINUTES.
FELL UPON THE BAR BURN SCAR LEFT
BY THE THOMAS FIRE.
THE LARGEST WHILE IN
CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY.
THOUGH THIS FIRE STARTED TO
APPROXIMATELY [inaudible]
A DECEMBER FOURTH.
AND THIS MONTH SLIDE WAS JANUARY
NINTH.
THE FIRE TOOK FORTY DAYS.
BEFORE IT WAS PUSHED INTO THE
BACK COUNTRY.
SO FOR FORTY DAYS THIS COMMUNITY.
WAS OUT ON PINS AND NEEDLES AND
IN FACT.
MANY THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN
MONTECITO.
HAD BEEN EVACUATED NO LESS THAN
FIVE OR SIX TIMES.
IN THAT INTERVENING FORTY DAYS.
I PERSONALLY WAS EVACUATED FOR A
WEEK.
SO WHEN THIS OF FIRE
[inaudible]
CONCLUDED.
A AT THE END OF DECEMBER IT'D
LEFT ABOUT. FOUR HUNDRED AND
FORTY SQUARE MILES OF RUGGED
TERRAIN BEHIND MINE ACETO.
WITHOUT VEGETATION AND SEARED
THE BARREN EARTH WAS SUCH HEAT.
THAT AN IMPERVIOUS CRUST FORMED
ON THE SURFACE SO WHEN THE RAINS
CAME THIS ESSENTIALLY WATER
REPELLENT LAYER.
IMPEDED THE ABILITY OF THE SOIL
TO ABSORB ANY SIGNIFICANT
MOISTURE RESULTING IN A DEBRIS
FLOW AND THAT IS NOT OF MUCH
SLIDE A DEBRIS FLOW IS BOULDERS
WEIGHING THOUSANDS OF POUNDS.
TREES UPROOTED SHRUBS UPROOTED
THAT CAME DOWN AT A RATE OF
ABOUT THIRTY MILES AN HOUR
THROUGH THIS COMMUNITY. TO THE
OCEAN.
AND A CLOSE TO THE HIGHWAY FOR
SEVERAL WEEKS.
THE DEBRIS FLOW.
BECAUSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
CUBIC YARDS OF MUD. TO COME DOWN
FROM THE MOUNTAINS.
AT A RATE AS I MENTIONED OF UP
TO THIRTY MILES AN HOUR.
THE AFTERMATH OF THIS DISASTER
MANY OF MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS.
ARE NOW FACED WITH THE PROSPECT
OF REBUILDING AND RECOVERING
THEIR LOSSES.
AND MANY OF THESE PEOPLE.
ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING FOLKS
WHO HAPPEN TO LIVE IN AN AREA
THAT WAS DECIMATED BY THE FIRE.
AND MANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE
VERY SOPHISTICATED INDIVIDUALS
CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY LAWYERS AND
OTHER PROFESSIONALS.
AND A OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
A GREAT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT.
INSURANCE ABOUT THE LAW ABOUT
PROCESS.
AND YET A PUBLIC DEBATE HAS
EMERGED ABOUT WHETHER HOMEOWNERS
INSURANCE POLICIES WILL COVER
MUCH FLOW CAUSE DAMAGE OR
WHETHER COVERAGE FOR THIS PERIL
REQUIRE SPECIALIZED FLOOD
INSURANCE.
MUCH OF THIS DEBATE CENTERS ON
WHETHER FIRE CAUSE MUD FLOWS ARE
CONSIDERED TO RESOLVE FROM A
COVERED PERIL.
SUCH AS A FIRE UNDER HOMEOWNERS
POLICY OR WHETHER DAMAGE FROM
MUD FLOWS FALLS WITHIN A
POLICIES EXCLUSION FOR EARTH
MOVEMENT AND WATER DAMAGE.
WE NOW REMEMBERING THAT THIS
MUCH FLOW OCCURRED TWO WEEKS
AFTER THE FIRE THERE'S VERY
LITTLE ARGUMENT THAT THE FIRE.
AND THE DECIMATION OF ALL OF THE
SURROUNDING AREAS AND I AS I
MENTIONED THIS CROSS THAT
DEVELOP OVER VIRTUALLY THE
ENTIRE AREA UP INTO THE
MOUNTAINS.
WAS THE WHAT THEY CALL THE
EFFICIENT PROXIMATE CAUSE OF
THIS [inaudible]
MUCH LOVE.
BUT WITHIN DAYS OF THE EVENT TWO
OPPOSING OP ED SAPIR IN THE LOS
ANGELES TIMES DRAWING OPPOSITE
CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHETHER A
HOMEOWNERS POLICY.
WOULD COVER DAMAGE FROM THE MUD
FLOWS LATER THAT MONTH THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE SOUGHT
TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE OF COVERAGE
THROUGH A NOTICE ISSUED TO
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS.
REMINDING THEM.
OF THEIR RISK COVERAGE FOR
UNCOVERED UNCOVERED PERILS UNDER
CALIFORNIA'S EFFICIENT PROXIMATE
CAUSE DOCTRINE BUT EVEN WITH
THIS CLARIFICATION.
I HAVE HEARD NUMEROUS ACCOUNTS
FROM CONSTITUENTS IN MY DISTRICT.
WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONFLICTING
ADVICE AND AS A RESULT MAY BE
STUCK IN UNNECESSARY DISPUTES
WITH THEIR INSURERS?
NOW MANY OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE
HOMES THAT ARE STILL UNDER FOUR
FEET OF MUD. FOUR FEET OF MUD
THAT IS ABOUT TO THE TOP OF THE
DYESS.
THROUGHOUT THEIR ENTIRE.
IT'S HIGHER THAN THAT.
ALL RIGHT TO THE TOP OF THE
MICROPHONES ID IT'S AN ENORMOUS
PROBLEM IN THE LONGER THIS MUCH
DAYS THE MORE IT CREATES THE
POTENTIAL FOR MOLD.
AND THE FURTHER DECIMATION OF
THEIR PROPERTY [inaudible]
SO -- SINCE
NINETEEN SIXTY THREE CALIFORNIA
INSURANCE LAW HAS REQUIRED THE
PROPERTY INSURER TO PROVIDE
COVERAGE.
WHENEVER AN INSURED PERIL IS
INDEED THE EFFICIENT PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF THE LOS.
THE OFFICIAL MEANT PROXIMATE
CAUSE IS THE CAUSE AMONG OTHER
DIFFERENT CONCURRENT CAUSES TO
WHICH A LOSSES MOST DIRECTLY
ATTRIBUTABLE EVEN THOUGH OTHER
CAUSES MAY FOLLOW IT.
AND OPERATE MORE IMMEDIATELY IN
PRODUCING THE LOSS THAT DESPITE
THIS LONG STANDING PRECEDENT
INSURERS CONTINUE TO DISPUTE
WHETHER HOMEOWNERS POLICIES
PROVIDE COVERAGE WHEN LOSSES
OCCURRED DUE TO MUD FLOWS THAT
WERE THEMSELVES.
BECAUSE BY OTHER COVERED PERIL
SUCH AS WILDFIRE.
IN THE CASE OF MONTECITO
RESIDENTS THIS CONFUSION IN THE
MARKETPLACE AGAIN LEAVES
HOMEOWNERS WONDERING WHETHER THE
LOSS OF FOR MANY THEIR LARGEST
SINGLE ASSET THEIR HOME.
WILL BE COVERED BY INSURANCE AND
I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU FOR MANY
OF THESE PEOPLE THEY HAVE BEEN
LAND RICH AND CASH POOR.
MANY OF THEM ARE SENIORS WHO
HAVE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO LIVE OUT THE
REST OF THEIR LIVES IN THEIR
HOMES THAT THEY OWN FREE AND
CLEAR BECAUSE THEY HAVE VERY
LITTLE ELSE. TO RELY UPON.
THIS BILL AIMS TO CODIFY
CALIFORNIA'S A FISHMAN PROXIMATE
CAUSE DOCTRINE IN IN THIS
CONFUSION ONCE AND FOR ALL.
AS AMENDED IN THE SENATE
INSURANCE COMMITTEE THE BILL
STATES THE QUOTE IF A LOSS OR
DAMAGE RESULTS FROM A
COMBINATION OF PERILS. ONE OF
WHICH IS A LANDSLIDE.
COVERAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED IF AN
INSURED PERIL IS THE EFFICIENT
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS OR
DAMAGE.
THIS FORMULATION OF DOCTRINE
FOLLOWS THE RELEVANT PRECEDENT
THAT EXISTS ALREADY IN
CALIFORNIA LAW SUCH AS THE HOWL
VERSUS STATE FOREIGN CASE AS
WELL AS THAT USED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE.
IN ITS JANUARY NOTICE TO THE
INDUSTRY CRITICALLY THE SOURCES
EXPRESS THE DOCTRINE IN
AFFIRMATIVE LANGUAGE THAT'S WAY
IT APPEARS IN THE CASE LAW AND
WE HAVE BASICALLY TRANSFERRED
THAT.
AFFIRMATIVE LANGUAGE INTO THIS
LEGISLATION COVERAGE SHALL BE
PROVIDED THAT'S THE LANGUAGE OF
THIS BILL NOT IN THE DOUBLE
NEGATIVES LIKE COVERAGE SHALL
NOT BE DENIED.
AS SOME STAKEHOLDERS WOULD
PREFER.
THERE'S NO CASE LAW THAT I'M
AWARE OF IN NOTHING THAT'S BEEN
PRESENTED BY THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY THAT ARE THAT
APPROACHES THE SUBJECT IN THE
NEGATIVE.
AS THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
SUGGESTS I WOULD INVITE THE VERY
CONFUSION I'M TRYING TO AVOID SO
THAT THESE PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE.
APPROPRIATE COVERAGE IF THEY ARE
INDEED COVERED FOR FIRE.
THE MUD SLIDE BEING THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THEIR LOSSES
AND THAT AGAIN IS SOMETHING THAT
GETS TO BE DETERMINED BUT IT'S
VERY HARD AND VERY FEW PEOPLE
ARE TO A ARE TAKING THE POSITION.
THAT IT WAS IN THE FAR THE
BECAUSE THIS MONTH SO I WOULD
NOT LOOKING THREE YEARS DOWN THE
ROAD FIVE YEARS OF THE TWO WEEKS
LATER.
THIS EVENT HEARD NOW I HAVE.
A BEEN WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE AND I APPRECIATE THE
CHAIRS ASSISTANCE IN THIS TO
ADDRESS THE SUPPOSED SHOULD
CONCERN --
THAT.
WELL THIS MIGHT ALLOW PEOPLE WHO
HAVEN'T PAID THEIR FIRE
INSURANCE TO BE ABLE TO GET
COVERAGE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO THAT'S NOT WHAT WE
THINK THE LEGISLATION SAYS BUT
WE ARE PREPARED TO TAKE ASSN
AMENDMENT CLARIFYING LANGUAGE --
THAT OF WILL AND I DON'T HAVE IT.
I HEAR IT IS THE BASICALLY SAYS
NOTHING IN THE ACT ADDING
SECTION FIFTY OF FIVE THIRTY
POINT FIVE TO THE INSURANCE CODE
IS INTENDED TO TO ALTER.
OR ABROGATE ANY DEFENSES EITHER
IN CONTRACT OR LAW THAT EXISTED
PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS BILL.
SO IF YOU HADN'T PAGER FIRE
INSURANCE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO
GET THIS COVERAGE BUT IF YOU ARE
CURRENT IF YOU ARE UP TO DATE IF
YOU WOULD BE ENTITLED TO
COVERAGE --
BECAUSE OF A FIRE BECAUSE THIS
IS THE OFFICIAL PROXIMATE CAUSE
THESE MONTH SUCH YOU WILL BE
COVERED THAT'S ALL THIS BILL
DOES.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO THESE
PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN GET ON WITH
THEIR LIVES MANY OF THEM FRANKLY
CAN'T REBUILD BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE ANY LAND LEFT.
AND NOW THEY ARE IN MAJOR --
AREAS OF THAT MUCH YOU KNOW
POTENTIAL FLOODING.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE
PEOPLE HAVE COVERAGE THEY'RE
ENTITLED TO GET COMPENSATION
THEY'RE ENTITLED TO TRY TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THEIR NEXT
STEP AND GET ON WITH THEIR LIFE
THEY'VE BEEN PAYING THEIR
PREMIUMS.
AND WITHOUT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AND I HAVE
WITH ME TODAY --
TO TESTIFY AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
THIS IS --
SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY IS NEAR
AND DEAR TO MY HEART THIS IS
SOMETHING FOR WHICH INSURANCE IS
INTENDED.
AND THESE FOLKS.
REALLY DESERVE TO BE A ABLE TO
ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THEIR
CONTRACTS MANY COMPANIES HAVE
ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS IT
ISN'T ALL OF THEM.
BUT SOME OF THEM HAVEN'T AND IT
RATHER THAN HAVE THIS CONFUSION
GOING FORWARD I WANT TO
SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT STATE
FARM HAS BEEN THE STATE THIS IS
A CASE AGAINST STATE FORM.
RECOGNIZING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY
MANY COMPANIES HAVE BEEN REALLY
GOOD ACTORS THEY'VE BEEN THERE
HELPING THESE PEOPLE BUT MANY
HAVE NOT AND WE HAVE TO MAKE
SURE.
THAT THESE COMPANIES HELP THERE
UP POLICY HOLDERS AND DO THE
RIGHT THING BY THEM SO --
WITH ME TODAY ARE TWO WITNESSES
TO A ADDRESS THE LEGALITY THIS
AND ALSO TO TO SHARE WHAT IS
GOING ON IN THE DISTRICT BECAUSE
I'M.
AWARE THAT THERE IS SOME CLAIM
THAT EVERYTHING IS JUST REALLY
HUNKY DORY.
I WISH THAT WERE THE CASE BUT
IT'S NOT.
SENATOR JACKSON BEFORE YOUR
WITNESSES A SPEAK I JUST WANNA
MAKE SURE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ALL -- ARE
AWARE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
SENATOR JACKSON IS ACCEPTING THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND WE THEIR
COPIES AT EACH [inaudible]
ABOUT.
PLACE HIROTA ON THE DYESS.
IT'S THAT IT'S THAT IT'S EXACTLY
THE LANGUAGE THAT SHE READ INTO
THE RECORD AND I JUST WANNA
ESTABLISHED THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
ACCEPTING THAT AND THE POLICE TO
PROCEED [inaudible]
IT.
YES -- I'M
WE HARRIS AND I'M.
PRESIDENT OF THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA AND
ALMOST.
SYRIA'S INSURANCE COVERAGE --
I REPRESENT HOMEOWNERS --
AND HAVE FOR OVER THIRTY YEARS
WHO -- HAVE
ABOUT INSURANCE POLICIES --
THE ISSUE --
THAT -- THE
SENATOR RAISED IS --
ABOUT EFFICIENT PROXIMATE --
BECAUSE PROXIMATE CAUSE --
IS IF YOU. TO MAKE IT INTO A
NOTE SIMPLER MORE UNDERSTANDABLE
WAY IF YOU THINK OF A ROW OF
DOMINOES.
AND EACH ONE OF THOSE DOMINOES
IS A BECAUSE IN SOME STATES LIKE
FOR EXAMPLE FLORIDA.
IF ANY OF THOSE CAUSES THOSE
DOMINOES IS COVERED UNDER THE
POLICY THERE IS COVERAGE.
IN CALIFORNIA OF WHAT OUR
SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IN --
GARVEY --
VERSUS STATE FARMER WITH THE
COURTS HAVE SAID IN THE HOW CASE.
IS THAT YOU LOOK AT THE MOST
IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE EFFICIENT
PROXIMATE CAUSE THAT IS THE ONE
THAT SETS THE DOMINOES IN MOTION.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE EFFICIENT
PROXIMATE CAUSES WHAT THIS BILL
DOES IS IT ENSHRINES IN STATUTE
WHAT IS ALREADY THE LAW WITH THE
WITH THE COURTS HAVE HELD FOR
DECADES.
IS THE LAW WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL
PROXIMATE CAUSE THAT IS YOU LOOK
AT THE MOST OF FISH MOST
IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHICH ARE IN
IN THE SITUATION THAT THE
SENATORS TALKED ABOUT.
WAS A FIRE THAT STARTED THE
DOMINOES IN MOTION AND SO --
I JUST WANTED PARTICULAR
OPPORTUNITY TO EX TO EXPLAIN WHY
HOW THE LAW WORK AND IF YOU --
IF -- YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'D BE HAPPY
TO ANSWER THEM THANK YOU MISTER
HARRIS THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YES THANK YOU I'M TERRY COLEMAN
I'M ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE UNITED POLICY HOLDERS.
IN NOT A POLICY HOLDERS IS A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT.
IT'S FUNDAMENTAL --
AIM IS -- TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO DOES WITH
RESPECT TO PROCURING INSURANCE --
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF WHAT WE DO.
IS WHAT'S CALLED ROADMAP TO
RECOVERY.
IN CONNECTION WITH THAT WE HOLD
WORKSHOPS --
IT THE PLACES OF OF DISASTERS.
LATELY WE'VE BEEN STRETCHED THIN.
UP AND DOWN THE STATE.
HOLDING DOZENS AND DOZENS OF
WORKSHOPS.
MEETING WITH DISASTER VICTIMS IN
BRINGING TOGETHER BOTH
GOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE.
AND EXPERTISE WITH RESPECT TO
INSURANCE.
AND AND THE LAW.
I CAN TELL YOU.
HAVING SAT ACROSS VICTIMS
[inaudible]
THAT.
NO ONE UNDERSTANDS INSURANCE.
THE MOST SOPHISTICATED THE MOST
EDUCATED PEOPLE ARE JUST LIKE.
THE AVERAGE CITIZEN WITHOUT SUCH
TRAINING.
THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND INSURANCE.
IN TRYING TO EXPLAIN EFFICIENT
PROXIMATE CAUSE.
THANK YOU OF MISTER HARRIS FOR
THE DOMINO --
ANALOGY THAT'S HELPFUL.
CLARITY IS IMPORTANT.
WHEN I SIT ACROSS FROM SOMEBODY?
AND I ASK THEM.
HOW CAN I HELP?
THERE TYPICAL RESPONSES.
WHAT DO I DO?
THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND STEP.
ONE WHICH PRIMARILY IN THIS
INSTANCE.
IS JUST SUBMISSION OF A CLAIM.
TRUE SUBMISSION OF A CLAIM.
THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
DOES NOT DENY THE EFFICIENT
PROXIMATE CAUSE RULE.
THEY NEED TO RECEIVE THE CLAIM.
FROM THE VICTIMS.
AND THEIR FIRST.
THE IS THE CONSUMERS FIRST
EXPERIENCE IN THIS REGARD.
IS MEDIA COVERAGE [inaudible]
WHICH INVARIABLY.
HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT
LANDSLIDES AND MUDSLIDES AND
DEBRIS FLOW ARE COMMONLY
EXCLUDED [inaudible]
THIS BILL.
IS OF VERY IMPORTANT CONSUMER
PROTECTION AND DISCLOSURE BILL.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE
CLARITY TO THESE VICTIMS
[inaudible]
AND UP AND DOWN THIS STATE.
WE IS AN ORGANIZATION IN TRYING
TO BRING CLARITY HAVE HAD TO
CONFRONT THIS.
YEAH SO THE UNITED POLICY
HOLDERS STRONGLY SUPPORTS THIS
LEGISLATION.
AND WERE HOPEFUL FOR ITS PASSAGE
THINK THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY --
FARTHER FOR FOLKS HERE WHO WISH
TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE.
ARE THERE PERSONS HERE.
WHO ARE --
WILL WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST THE
BILL.
OR WHO MAY BE IN THE TWEENER
CATEGORY.
EITHER.
EITHER CATEGORY [inaudible]
WELCOME.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS CAN
STONE STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF ALL STATE INSURANCE THE
PERSONAL INSURANCE FEDERATION
AND A NUMBER OF OTHER.
INSURANCE TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL -- THE
VAST MAJORITY OF WHAT THE AUTHOR
AND THE PROPONENTS SAID --
WE AGREE WITH.
HER STATEMENT HER WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF THE LAW.
ARE COMPLETE IF IT'S ACCURATE A
AND I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT WHAT
EFFICIENT PROXIMATE CAUSE IS AND
I'M BECAUSE I THERE'S THERE'S
THERE'S NO NEED --
I ALSO BOTTOM ONE AT TAKE A
MOMENT TO SAY HOW SYMPATHETIC WE
ARE TOO AND THE VICTIMS AND AND
SENATOR JACKSON'S CONSTITUENTS
COME -- FOR
THEIR SUFFERING.
BUT NEITHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS
MEANS THAT THERE'S A NEED --
I NEED FOR THIS BILL THE LAW IS
ALREADY QUITE CLEAR --
AS BOB THE SENATOR ARTICULATED
AS THE SENATOR'S FIRST WITNESS
ARTICULATED.
AYE AS STEVE JONES ARTICULATED
IN HIS MEMO TO THE INDUSTRY COM.
ABOUT IF THERE'S A FLOOD HERB
THERE'S RAINS HAVE.
THAT THE RAINS BECAUSE THAT LED
TO SCOOT TO GO DOWN AND DAMAGE
YOUR HOME THEN THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES MAY NOT EXCLUDE. FOR
THAT WE AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY
DISPUTE FOR THAT ON AND IN FACT --
WE ASKED THE SENATOR AND THE
SENATOR'S STAFF IF THERE WERE
CONSTITUENTS WHOSE COMPANIES
WERE NOT COVERING --
THAT --
AMONG THE DAMAGE AND WE HAVE NOT
BEEN TOLD OF THERE ARE AND IF
THERE ARE ANY PLEASE PLEASE LET
US KNOW BECAUSE WE WILL WORK
WITH OUR FOLKS HERE.
BECAUSE ALL OF THAT INSURANCE
COMPANIES WHOSE LOBBYIST GET
AROUND TO MEET TOGETHER WERE
LIKE ARE WE COVERING THAT'S IN
IT AND EVERYBODY AGREES THAT
JUST AS THE SENATOR ARTICULATED.
BECAUSE THE RANGE HAPPEN SO SOON
AFTER ON THE FIRES THAT THAT.
WAS OF THE FIRES WERE IN FACT
THE EFFICIENT NAM PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF THAT --
WE THEREFORE BELIEVE ARM AS A
PRINCIPLE BASIS THERE'S NOT A
LARGE OF DOES NOT DISPUTE HERE
AND THERE'S NO THERE'S NO NEED --
FOR THE BILL.
NEVERTHELESS UNDERSTANDING --
THAT DESIRE --
TO ENSHRINED IN STATUTES
SOMETHING LIKE THIRTY LAWYERS
REPRESENTING MULTIPLE DIFFERENT
COMPANIES HAVE A REALLY
EXTENSIVE PROCESS OF PHONE CALLS
AND EMAILS TRYING TO DISTILL
INTO WORDS WHAT.
UP THAT CASE LAW STOOD
[inaudible]
FOR AND ANNA.
HAVE YOU ALL HAVE EVER HAD A
BUNCH OF LAWYERS IN THAT ROOM
GETTING THEM TO AGREE ON
ANYTHING IS REALLY DIFFICULT AND
GETTING A BUNCH OF INSURANCE
LAWYERS --
TO AGREE ON WHAT THE CASE FOR
WAS WAS NOT AN EASY TASK AND WE
DID THAT AND WE PROVIDED THAT IN
OUR OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED LETTER
AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE WHEN
THEY RE OUR LANGUAGE AND YOUR
LANGUAGE ARE GONNA.
REGULAR NON WHERE PEOPLE ARE
GONNA THINK THEY'RE THAT
DIFFERENT.
BUT INSURANCE COVERAGE LAWYERS
WITH YEARS AND YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE ON FELT THAT THEY
WERE.
THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IS HE IN
HOW THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN AND
SO IN THE BILL YOU KNOW IT SAYS
AYE BUT COVERAGE MUST BE
PROVIDED AN IN ON OUR PROPOSED
LANGUAGE IT SAYS WE MAY NOT
EXCLUDE.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE
AND FOR EXAMPLE.
JULIAN VERSUS HARTFORD
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE THE CASE
SAYS THIS CASE CALLS ON US TO
DECIDE WHETHER AN INSURER MAY
CONSISTENT WITH. FIVE THIRTY
NINE IN THE OFFICIAL PROXIMATE
CAUSE DOCTOR AND DENY COVERAGE --
AND THEN THE SAME THING IN HOW
WILL VERSUS STATE FARM WE MUST
DECIDE WHETHER IN INSURANCE AND
SURPRISING COVERAGE UNDER IN ALL
RISK INSURANCE.
AND ALWAYS PROPERTY INSURANCE
POLICY NAY CONTRACTUALLY EXCLUDE
COVERAGE --
THERE'S ALSO LANGUAGE IN THE
CASE.
CASES WHERE SENTENCES ARE
WRITTEN IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND
SO YOU CAN PICK OUT THOSE AND IN
SUPPORT OF MANY --
FOR STATUTE THAT IS AN
INFORMATIVE.
M. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT OUR
LANGUAGE MOST ACCURATELY --
REPRESENTS AND CASE LAW I WOULD
ALSO JUST IN CONCLUSION --
TRY YOUR ATTENTION TO OUR A
SENTENCE OR A PARAGRAPH IN THE
ANALYSIS OF THE BOTTOM OF PAGE
TO TOP OF PAGE.
THREE ON WHICH WHICH REALLY.
OUR EX EXPLAINS THE DANGERS IN
TRYING TO CODIFY CASE FINE IF I
MAY.
ON IT SAYS EFFORTS TO CODIFY
CASE LAW ANY PARTICULAR COMPLEX
FACT BASED CASE LAW ARE
INHERENTLY FRAUGHT WITH PROBLEMS
THEY'RE REALLY ONLY TWO POSSIBLE
CONSEQUENCES. ONE THE BILL
ACCOMPLISHES NO ACTUAL CHANGE
THE LAW BUT ADDS LITIGATION RISK
IS PARTY'S.
BATTLE WITH RESPECT TO FUTURE
DISPUTES TO CLARIFY WHETHER OR
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK
CURRENT CASE LAW MAY HAVE BEEN
MADE.
AND TO THE BILL UNINTENTIONALLY
MAKES CHANGES THAT A COURT
INTERPRETS --
TO CHANGE OR ALTER THE RESULTS A
PRIOR CASE LAW IS THE RISK OF
UNINTENTIONAL AN UNDETERMINED
CHANGE TO EXISTING LAW WORTH THE
RISK FOR A BILL THAT EXPRESSES
THE INTENT. TO NOT CHANGED ON
EXISTING LAW AT ALL ON THE LINE
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL REFERS TO
EARTH MOVEMENTS MUDSLIDES MODE
MOVEMENT.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL --
INSURANCE COVERAGE AVAILABLE FOR
EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE AND FOR
FLOOD INSURANCE AND WE WOULD BE
VERY NERVOUS TO BE REQUIRED TO
COVER THINGS UP THAT WERE NOT
COVERED BY AN AUGUST HOMEOWNERS
INSURANCE POLICY.
AND SO I REALIZE THAT IT'S TIME
MUST BE FRUSTRATING FOR YOU ALL
TO HEAR LAWYERS WHO ARE LIKE
INCHES APART.
YOU KNOW FIGHTING TO THE DEATH
KIND OF TYPE THING AND I AND I
REALIZE THAT AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
THAT -- BUT
I I JUST GOT TO TELL YOU THAT
OUR WAR ON EXPERIENCED --
LAWYERS -- I
FEEL THAT OUR LANGUAGE IS THE
ONE THAT ACCURATELY REPRESENTS A
CASE LINE SO UNLESS THE BILL AS
AMENDED TO ACCEPT THOSE
AMENDMENTS WE MUST RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE AND ASK FOR YOUR KNOW
ABOUT.
OF THANK YOU OF MS STONE ARE
THERE OTHER FOLKS WHO WISH TO
SPEAK.
AGAINST [inaudible]
THE BILL.
THE MORE IS FAIR MEMBERS THE
COMMITTEE OUR MONTHLY SHOT ON
THEY HAVE A PROPERTY CASUALTY
INSURERS FOR THE REASONS STATED
WE ARE BOTH OF THE BILLS WELL
THANK YOU.
BY THE WAY I WANT TO APOLOGIZE
TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE
FOLKS ATTENDING FOR THE ROOM --
WE WERE WE WERE --
STUCK WITH THIS ROOM AT THE LAST
MINUTE AND SO I THE SEATING
ARRANGEMENTS ARE AWKWARD BUT TO
WERE.
WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH ITS ICE
ONE OF APOLOGIZE FOR THAT A
PLEASE GO AHEAD O?
FOLKS AGAINST THE BILL.
CARA CROSS PERSONAL INSURANCE
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA WE ALSO
UP THE BILL I'M APPRECIATE THAT
THE SENATOR IS LOOKING FOR WAYS
TO HAVE AMENDMENTS THE MY
CORRECTED.
BUT WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT
WITHOUT HAVING LAWYERS AS KIM
SAID BE ABLE LOOK CLOSELY AT
THIS.
THAT WERE GONNA BE IN JEOPARDY
OF CODIFYING SOMETHING THAT'S
NOT TRUE THE CASE LAW THINKING.
MARIA GARCIA WITH MEMBER TRACK
ON THE HALF A STATE FARM
INSURANCE FOR ALL THE REASONS
ARE ELOQUENTLY ARTICULATED BY
MISTER AND WE ALSO OPPOSE.
CATHERINE PETTIBONE AMERICAN
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION --
WE APPRECIATE THEM AND LET'S BY
THE COMMITTEE WE THINK THOSE PUT
SOME GUARDRAILS AROUND SOME OF
THE CONCERNS.
M. HAD WE'VE HAD GOOD
CONVERSATIONS ACTUALLY SOME OF
OUR WE HAVE JUST VERY NARROW
CONCERNS LEFTOVER ABOUT SOME OF
HE TERMINOLOGY AND I LOOK FOR
TO WORKING AND POTENTIALLY
ADDRESSING ALSO THINK YOU
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE
BILL --
SENATOR YOU'RE WELCOME --
TO SUMMARIZING CONCLUDE.
IF I MAY HELP MY THIS MAN
REPRESENTS MORE THAN THIRTY
LAWYERS AND YOU KNOW WE CAN'T
LAWYERS [inaudible]
PAN AFRICAN [inaudible]
BUT I'VE I WOULD WELL LIMP WHEN.
I THINK IN IN THE YOU KNOW I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE --
THAT THE CASE LAW IS NOT AS
CLEAR.
OF THE KIDS THAT WE'VE TAKEN
THIS LANGUAGE DIRECTLY FROM THE
SEMINAL CASES ON THIS ISSUE.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THE THE
INDUSTRY IS FIGHTING SO HARD NOT
TO USE THE LANGUAGE.
THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE GOAL
HERE IS TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION --
AS WAS INDICATED WHICH JUST WE
WE NEED EVERYBODY ON THE SAME
PAGE HERE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY.
COULDA WOULDA SHOULDA WE HAVE
TIGHTENED THIS SHOP WHERE WE'RE
BASICALLY MIRRORING THE LANGUAGE
SO THAT THERE'S NO DISPUTE AND
LET ME TELL YOU WHY THAT'S
IMPORTANT.
COUPLE WEEKS AGO I GOT AN EMAIL.
FROM A WOMAN NAMED MRS CANTON.
HER SON JACK.
IS -- WAS
SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD.
AND WHEN THE DEBRIS FLOW SWEPT
THROUGH THEIR HOME.
JACK IN HIS DAD WERE SWEPT AWAY.
HIS HIS STATS BODY WAS FOUND.
BUT JACK CAN'T IN AGE SEVENTEEN
IS STILL MISSING.
AND I GOT AN EMAIL FROM HIS
MOTHER ASKING.
WHY THEY HAVEN'T CLEANED UP THE
MUD?
BECAUSE SHE BELIEVES THAT HER
SON'S REMAINS ARE IN THE MUD.
AND THERE ARE SO MANY PLACES AND
SO MANY HOMES WHERE THE MUD IS
JUST SITTING THERE.
SHE ASKED WHY CAN'T THEY CLEAN
THIS UP SO THAT I CAN FIND MY
SON.
AND I THINK THAT'S A LEGITIMATE
QUESTION THE FACT THAT THERE IS
SO MANY OF THESE CLAIMS HAVE NOT
YET BEEN RECONCILED.
SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TOLD
DON'T TOUCH THE AREA ON YOUR
LAND UNTIL WE RESOLVE THIS CLAIM.
AND AS I MENTIONED FOR THEM IT
IS THE DETERIORATION OF THEIR
PROPERTY. FOR THIS WOMAN IT'S
TRYING TO FIND THE REMAINS OF
HER SONG.
THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR THIS AND
THIS BILL WILL.
JUST CLARIFY AS WAS TESTIFIED
WHICH JUST SEEKING CLARITY THIS
IS THE LAW WE WANT TO CODIFY IT
SO THAT THERE'S NO MISTAKE.
I'M HAPPY DO CONTINUE WORKING IF
THERE REALLY IS SOMETHING
LEGITIMATE HERE.
BUT WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW HOW
MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE
HEAD OF A PIN.
THE LAW IS THERE.
THE NEED IS THERE AND I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE.
THANK YOU SENATOR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS QUESTIONS THIS IS A
COMPLICATED SUBJECT --
WE HAVE THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
SENATOR JACKSON HAS AGREED WITH
THE AMENDMENT WHICH AS MISS
PETTIBONE SAID.
OF PROVIDES GUARD RAILS A GOING
FORWARD.
ON A VERY COMPLICATED SUBJECT
ANY QUESTIONS MISTER COOLEY YOU
LOOK LIKE YOU'RE ASKING A
QUESTION.
I GUESS WHEN I LOOK AT THIS BILL --
CERTAIN THAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT
THE BILL WERE ACTUALLY STATING A
BROAD CONSCRIPTS WILL OF LAW
DEALING WITH OFFICIAL PROXIMATE
CAUSATION.
IT IS NOT WITHSTANDING CERTAIN
OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE
INSURANCE CODE. FIVE THIRTY FIVE
THIRTY TWO ARE.
NOW SENATOR PROVISIONS.
MY OBSERVATION IS LOOKING THIS
BILL IS I ACTUALLY KNOW OF ONLY
ONE PLACE IN OUR CODES CERTAIN
INSURANCE CODE.
WHERE WE ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY
ARE YOU FISH PROXIMATE CAUSE
ISSUES?
CONCURRENT CAUSATION ISSUES.
WHO RESPECT THE PERIL OF
EARTHQUAKE?
IT'S ONE ZERO ZERO EIGHT EIGHT
IT IS A SPECIFIC RULE OF LAW IN
THE INSURANCE CO DEALING WITH.
EFFICIENT CAUSATION AND
CONCURRENT CAUSATION.
IT DATES TO ABOUT.
NINETEEN SEVENTY THREE WHICH IS
THE TIME OF THE GARBAGE
DECISIONS --
AND WE'RE PASSING A BILL WITHOUT
REFERENCE SEEN.
AN INSURANCE COOPER VERSION ON
THAT SPECIFIC POINT.
THE RULE OF LAW STATED THERE IS
WHY WE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA
EARTHQUAKE AUTHORITY.
AND THEN IN THE WAKE OF THAT
RULE.
WHEN THEY WANT TO SAY?
THAT IF YOU HAVE AN EARTHQUAKE%
WITH FIRE FOLLOWING --
THE FIRE POLICY STILL PROVIDES
COVERAGE ON THE FIRE ISSUES.
THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC
STATUTORY RULE ENACTED IN.
EIGHTY EIGHT IT COVERS THAT.
CRISP AND TO THE POINT.
NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION TWENTY
ONE NOTHING IN SECTION ONE ZERO
ZERO EIGHT EIGHT EXEMPTS INSURER.
FROM ITS OBLIGATION OF A FIRE
INSURANCE POLICY TO COVER LOSSES
OF A FIRE.
WHICH JUST BECAUSE BAR FALLS
EARTHQUAKE AND AND I SORT OF
FEEL IF THE CONCERN IS LAND
MOVEMENT MUD FLOW OTHER SORTS OF
THINGS ARE RISING FROM A FIRE.
AND COVERAGE BEING PROVIDED
UNDER FIRE POLICY.
WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY THAT?
INSTEAD OF ANNOUNCING A BROAD
WILL DO AN EFFICIENT PROXIMAL
CAUSATION WE'RE DECADES LATER
PASSED NEW RULE THAT DOESN'T
ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING.
CONCEPTS IZZY ARE ALREADY IN
THEIR COATS IT FEELS TO BE.
I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SAYING ALL
WE ARE DOING JUST SCRIBING CASE
LAW.
BUT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY PUT IN
THAT CASE ON THE FRAMEWORK IN
WHICH IS EVOLVING ARE CALIFORNIA
STATUTES [inaudible]
AND I JUST FEEL OF YOU WANNA
SURE THERE'S COVERAGE WHEN YOU
HAVE A FIRE THAT LEASES OTHER
THINGS.
CAN'T WE JUST SAY THAT.
I DO FEEL THAT THE AMENDMENT
THAT'S BEEN OFFERED.
THAT SAYS YOU SEE YOU'RE GONNA
RESPECT DEFENSES OF EXISTENCE IN
CASE LAW OR STATUTE.
DOES START TO PICK UP ONE ZERO
ZERO EIGHT EIGHT WHICH IS
CLEARLY A STATUTORY.
RULE.
BUT AGAIN WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY
DISCUSSING THE SORTS OF THINGS
SO I FEEL THAT THERE'S THERE'S
VERY ESSENTIAL ON THIS AREA THAT
WERE ACTING AS IF IT'S NOT ON
THE BOOKS WERE NOT REALLY.
FUHRMAN THAT IT'S THERE.
AND SO IT GIVES ME A A REAL
DISQUIET.
AS I READ THIS.
RIGHT NOW HAVE MY WEAKNESS.
YES I THINK YOUR RESPONSES LATER
APPROPRIATE PALM [inaudible]
THE THE OFFICIAL PROXIMATE CAUSE
A DOCTOR AND HOW WITHIN THE
ANALYSIS OF IT HOW IN THIS BILL
WAS TAKEN.
DIRECTLY FROM HALL AND GARVEY.
AND IT ISN'T --
IT ISN'T ONLY IF IT IS A. AS I
THINK UBER SAID EARLIER APPLIES
TO ALL RISK POLICIES NOT JUST
FIRE POLICIES SO --
IS A IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THIS
CONTEXT BECAUSE IT'S AN
APPROPRIATE STATEMENT OF THE LAW
TO LIMIT IT --
IN IN SOME OTHER WAY WOULD I
THINK CONFUSING ISSUE WOULDN'T
ACTUALLY --
HELP AND I THINK THE BEST THING
TO DO IN THIS SITUATION IS TO GO
WITH THE LAW THAT YOU HAVE
RATHER THAN.
TRY TO CREATE A NEW --
A NEW PARADIGM AND SO.
THE BILL DOES IS IT TAKES THE
WHOLE --
DECISION USES THE LANGUAGE OF
THE WHOLE DECISION FOR EFFICIENT
PROXIMATE CAUSE --
IN APPLIES IT A TO THIS CONTEXT
WHICH IS ONE OF THE CONTEXT
WHICH OFFICIAL PROXIMATE CAUSE
APPLIES TO ORANGES IS A MUCH
LIKE.
A MISTER FRAZIER HAS QUESTION A
MISTER CHAIR WOULD YOU ADMONISH
MR COOLEY FOR STEALING MY NOTES
[inaudible]
YEAH.
YOU KNOW I HAD IT ALL WORKED OUT.
JOE CUT MY COMPLIMENTS TO MISTER
COOLEY FOR HIS KNOWLEDGE I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE ME BROUGHT
UP A VERY VALID POINT.
WHERE WE SHOULD NARROW THIS?
OPPORTUNITY --
WE'RE GENERALIZING THIS ON ONE
INCIDENT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO
LOOK AT AN OPPORTUNITY. FOR MS
JACKSON.
I WOULD HOPE THAT AND I
APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING IN TAKING
THIS AMENDMENT.
BUT I HOPE THAT THERE'S AN
ONGOING PROCESS THAT IT.
AS IS AS THIS IF IT GETS OUT OF
COMMITTEE.
THE YOU YOU COMMIT TO WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION. TO COME TO
YES --
BECAUSE I MEAN WE HAVE ANOTHER
WHACK AT THIS IT IT YOU KNOW
WHAT THE FLOOR.
AND I'D WOULD HOPE THAT --
THAT THE CONCLUSION COMING IS A
MY PERCEPTION IS THIS IS A
GENERALIZATION OF AN INCIDENT
THERE'S NOTHING MORE.
THEN ME FEELING FOR THE THAT
POOR MOTHER WHO LOST HER SON AND
HAS.
NO OPPORTUNITY GET THAT
INDIVIDUAL YET OKAY I LIVE THAT.
BUT I ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
THAT THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT THE
STATE AS A WHOLE [inaudible]
AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE I
WOULD HOPE THAT THE OPPOSITION
AND YOU CAN WORK TOWARDS A
SOLUTION AND HOW WE CAN GET THE
S. OR A COMPROMISE.
WE'RE BOTH NOT SATISFIED BECAUSE
THAT'S A COMPROMISE.
WELL I CAN CERTAINLY COMMIT TO
THAT IF WE CAN'T GET TO A
COMPROMISE THAT I WILL NOT BRING
THE BILL ON THE FLOOR --
IF ARE.
UP PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE IS
THAT -- WELL
THIS IS A SINGLE INCIDENT WE NOW
ARE HAVING FIRES UP IN LAKE
COUNTY THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE
THIS THE SOUL INCIDENT --
EVEN THOUGH IT DID OCCUR IN MY
DISTRICT THAT WE WERE JUST THE
ONES THAT WERE MOST.
UNFORTUNATE AT LEAST AT THIS
POINT TIME SO --
WEIRD TRYING TO SEE CLARA SPAN
THE LAW AND I APPRECIATE THE
CONCERNS THAT OF MISTER COOLEY
ADDRESSED AND WE ARE HAPPY TO
LOOK INTO MAKING SOME REFERENCE
TO THIS.
BUT YOU SEE AN EARTHQUAKE IS
GENERALLY NOT A COVERED.
EVENT IS NOT SO.
SO THAT AIM MUCH OF FIRE MUCH
LIGHT THAT OCCURS AS A RESULT OF
AN EARTHQUAKE UNLESS YOU HAVE
EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE WOULD
ARGUABLY NOT.
BE COVERED WE ARE LOOKING AT THE
INCIDENTS WHERE MOST PEOPLE NOT
EVERYBODY IN PROBABLY MOST
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
INSURANCE HAVE FIRE INSURANCE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
HERE IS THE LAW SAYS THAT IF YOU
HAVE FIRE INSURANCE.
THAT IS THE OFFICIAL PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF EARTH MOVEMENT NOT THE
OTHER WAY AROUND BUT IF IF
YOU'RE COVERED WITH FIRE
INSURANCE AND A A MUD FLOOR MUCH
LIGHTER WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL
IT OCCURS.
THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY KICKED OFF
IF YOU WILL BY THAT DOMINO.
THEN AND AND YOU QUALIFY WITH
FOR RICHARD SETS THE AMENDMENT
WE TOOK THAT AFFIRMS THAT ANY
DEFENSES THE INSURANCE COMPANY
MIGHT HAVE --
DID TO THAT BASIC FIRE INSURANCE.
A POLICY WILL OF BE IN PLAY AS
YOU SEE COMPENSATION OF THE FOR
THE DEBRIS FLOW.
A SO THAT SHOULD CLARIFIED AGAIN.
WHAT THE ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE IS
WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO
CHANGE THE CASE LAW LANGUAGE AND
PUT IT IN THE NEGATIVE?
OR WE'RE GOING TO USE THE CASE
LAW LANGUAGE AND THE CASE ALL
LANGUAGE TALKS ABOUT IT IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE AND BY SWITCHING
THAT THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT.
IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.
AND THAT'S WHEN YOU GOING TO GET
FOR LITIGATION MY GOAL HERE IS.
TO AVOID LITIGATION IS TO CREATE
THAT CLARITY AND I US THE SUBMIT
THEM AND WE WILL WORK I THINK
THAT --
MISTER COOLEY HAS A GOOD POINT
WE DON'T WANT THERE TO BE SO
MANY DIFFERENT REFERENCES AND IF
THERE'S A A PURPOSE TO A A
REFERENCE TO A CROSS REFERENCE.
IN THE SECTION TEN THOUSAND
EIGHTY EIGHT IF.
I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO WORK ON
THAT SO WHAT I'D LIKE YOU TO
UNDERSTAND IS WHAT.
I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.
AND AND I'M HAPPY TO KEEP
WORKING TO GET TO THAT GOAL.
WE APPRECIATE THAT AND I THINK
THAT.
MS STONE AS YOU'V HEARD THAT
THERE ISN'T A VICTIM.
WHOSE LIPMAN BEEN NOT RECOVERED
I WOULD LOSE HOPE THAT WE CAN
ACCELERATE THROUGH YOUR
ASSOCIATION PP OF THIS THE
INSURANCE AGENCIES THERE.
BUT DIRECTLY INVOLVES HIS MOTHER
CAN [inaudible]
GET CLOSER [inaudible]
AND SELECT.
SO WITH THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR
SAYING THE GONNA WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION HE WON'T BRING IT TO
THE FLOOR UNLESS YOU COME TO A
COMPROMISE THANK YOU.
AND MISTER [inaudible]
GRAYSON.
THANK YOU CHAIR AND JUST WANNA
DO -- THEY
SAVED THE EASY STUFF FOR ME I
GUESS BUT I HAVE COUPLE
QUESTIONS AND I'D I DID WANT TO
CLARIFY WHAT --
MY COLLEAGUE JUST ENDED WITH --
BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR RESPONSE
BUT BUT NO YOU YOU WERE BUSY --
YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE GOING TO
WORK WITH OPPOSITION AND IF THEY
DIDN'T COME TO A COMPROMISE YOU
WOULD BRING IT TO THE FLOOR.
THAT THAT'S CORRECT OKAY SO MY
OTHER QUESTION WHICH IS NOT ON
THE OTHER HAND I REALLY DO WANT
THE OPPOSITION TO WORK WITH ME
ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S SO THEN
THEY WIN YET IF YOU WELL BY.
SO LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY A FIGHT
IF IF WE ARE ABLE TO COME TO AN
AGREEMENT.
ALL PRESENT ON THE FLOOR AND IF
WE'RE NOT AND I CAN EXPLAIN WHY
AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK
WITH EACH OF YOU AND IF YOU FEEL
THAT WE'RE BEING.
REASONABLE AND THEY'RE NOT
NECESSARILY BEING REASONABLE I
WOULD THEN ASK FOR YOUR VOTE AS
WELL I WANT TO GET THEM TO THE
TABLE TO IT TO WORK WITH US TO
COME DIAZ.
IF THEY DON'T WANT TO COME TWO
YES THEY SAY OH WE WORKED IN NO
WE COULDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT
I WANT THEM TO HAVE THE SAME
KIND OF INCENTIVE TO GET THIS
BILL OUT AS IS HARD TO AND THEN
I THANK YOU FOR THE CLARITY THAT
HELPS.
IN THE SAY YOU WERE INCHES APART.
I HOPE SO I I I REALLY WANT TO
GET THIS IS MICRO IS JUST I MEAN
I'M SEEING A SHAKING HEAD HERE
ALRIGHT WELL THAT'S A GOOD SIGN
[inaudible]
WE WOULD [inaudible]
WE FOUND WELCOME [inaudible]
WHICH SITUATIONS ON THE
PROPONENTS FEELS THAT OUR
LANGUAGE DOES NOT HAVE.
AND SO IF YOU CAN TELL IF YOUR
FOLKS CAN TELL ME HOW ARE OF THE
PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN THAT CASE
AND HAVE A SEND IT BACK SO THOSE
DOZENS OF LAWYERS.
RIGHT.
TRY TO ADDRESS OKAY WHERE IT
WANTED TO OR NOT GOING TO DEBATE
THAT NOW BUT THE BY THINK THE
DOOR IS OPEN. FOR FURTHER
CONVERSATIONS AND ATTEMPTS. TO
TO DO CAN MORE NARROWING.
THE UP.
POSSIBLY.
IF IF WE CAN DO THAT AN
ACCOMPLISHED THE GOAL OF GAINING
CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY AND
AVOID LITIGATION OVER ARGUING
ABOUT WHAT THE WORDS MEAN.
I AM THERE.
I THINK YOU'RE ABOUT ONE ONE
LAST QUESTION.
ADD BECAUSE YOU WOULD DELIVER TO
US A VERY TRAGIC STORY IN MY
THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS CONTINUE TO
BE WITH THE VICTIMS --
WHAT I DIDN'T HEAR?
AND SO MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME
UNDERSTAND IS.
WAS THE ARGUMENT --
THAT TO THIS PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUAL WHO STILL HASN'T
FOUND THE BODY OF HER SON WAS
THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY DON'T
HAVE INSURANCE OR THAT THE
INSURANCE COVERAGE IS NOT THERE
FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT
PROVIDING IT.
WAS THE ARGUMENT THEY'RE NOT
DOING THINGS FAST ENOUGH AND
WILL YOUR BILL MAKE THINGS WORK
FASTER.
WELL THAT THAT THE CONCERN IS
NOT THAT THE BOY'S BODY AND I
HATE HIM.
YES THIS YOUNG MAN'S --
WERE LIKELY SWEPT DOWN.
THROUGH THIS DEBRIS FLOW AND THE
DEBRIS FLOW WENT FOR A PERIOD OF
ABOUT FIVE MILES.
AND IT ENDED UP IN THE OWE IT
STOPPED ONLY BY THE OCEAN.
SO ANYWHERE.
IN THAT AREA THERE'S A
POSSIBILITY THAT THIS.
YOUNG MAN'S REMAINS ARE LOCATED.
BUT THE FACT THAT THEY HAVEN'T
BEEN REMOVING THE MUD FROM SO
MANY OF THESE HOMES AND PART OF
IT IS BECAUSE OF THE THE CASES
HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED.
THEY'RE STILL PENDING A
DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES GOING TO DO.
SO IT IS A PART OF IT IS PERHAPS
CONFUSION ON THE PARTS OF THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES THE
ADJUSTERS COME IN AND MANY OF
THEM HAVE NEVER HAD.
EXPERIENCES SIMILAR TO THIS WE
WANT TO BE CLEAR AND AND SOME
ADJUSTERS HAVE BEEN TERRIFIC AND
SOME HAVE SAID I HAVE TO GO BACK
AND GET APPROVAL.
AND THAT APPROVAL WHICH SIX
MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD IN THAT
APPROVAL STILL.
HASN'T COME SO YOU BELIEVE THAT
THIS BILL WILL HELP EXPEDITE DUE
PROCESS I ABSOLUTE IN THE FUTURE
FOR FUTURE FOR IN THE FUTURE
CORRECT YOUR INCIDENTS --
I APOLOGIZE I'VE TO GO PRESENT A
BILL TO SENATE LABOR COMMITTEE
VICE CHAIR MAYES WILL TAKE OVER
AND I THINK --
WORK VERY CLOSE TO VOTING ON
YOUR BILL ALTHOUGH THERE WERE A
COUPLE I THINK MR GIPSON THAT
QUESTION BUT IT'S WELL THANK YOU
VERY MUCH --
FIRST BY APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION AT THE ROBUST
CONVERSATION ALSO --
AND FORTH ESPECIALLY --
ERASE IN --
AS HE NO IT'S AND HIS LAW THAT
HE READ.
CLARIFY SOME THINGS IN MY HEAD --
I WANT -- TO
ALSO --
PIGGYBACK ON MR FRASER'S OF
COMMENTS AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
WORK -- WITH
THE OPPOSITE SIDE TO TRY TO GET
TO A A YES THAT BOTH CAN AGREE --
TO BCAUSE I WAS VERY CONFUSED
UNTIL MISTER FRASER OBSCURE
DON'T MISS COOLEY --
PROVIDED HIS ITERATION OF THE OF
THE PARTICULAR POSITION AND SO
I'M GONNA RESERVE I'M GOING TO
VOTE YES TODAY --
WITH UNDERSTANDING.
AND AND YOUR WORDS THAT YOU WILL
WORK.
AND IF FOR WHATEVER REASON --
UK COME TO AGREEMENT --
AND YOU STILL WANT TO PROCEED
THEN YOU WILL COME TO EACH
MEMBER AND HAVE A DIALOGUE IN
TERMS OF WHAT YOU PUTS PUT ON
THE FLOOR AND I WOULD ALSO ASK
THE OTHER SIDE TO THE SAME EXACT
THING.
BUT I'M GONNA MY RIGHT TO VOTE
FOR MY POSITION --
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU
GUYS WOULD WORK THIS THING OUT
AND TRY TO GET TO A YES SO THAT
I FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING --
ON THE FLOOR IN THE STATE
ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING THIS BILL
AND AGAIN MY HEART GOES OUT TO
THE FAMILY BECAUSE WHETHER YOUR
CHILD IS.
THREE WHO LIKE WE LOST OUR CHILD
A THREE YEARS AGO --
OR WHETHER THEY'RE YOU KNOW
FIFTY YEARS OLD CHILD IS A CHILD --
MY HEART GOES OUT THAT FAMILIES
JUST DO THE WHOLE ENTIRE
DEVASTATION SO THAT'S WHERE I'M
AT TODAY WE GET WE HOPE THAT YOU
GET TO A YES THANK YOU.
ANY FURTHER DODD MISSED YOU.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO A DO YOU
KNOW WHAT AND I'M A MEMBER
GIPSON JUST SAT --
DISPIRITO WHEN YOU GET ALL OF
DISCOUNT A COMMITTEE WILL GO.
TO WELL LISTEN NEXT COMMITTEE
WILL LOOK.
GO TO THE FLOOR FLOOR AND I
THINK IT'S IT WILL GO TO THE
FLOOR.
OKAY I WOULD REALLY --
HOPING THAT THE YOU CAN.
COME WILL COME UP WITH SOME
COMPROMISE WITH OPPOSITION.
BY BOAT TODAY WERE JUST A
COURTESY VOTE WHOM TO MOVE TO A
BILL FOR FOR MICHELLE THANK YOU.
ACTUALLY I HAD SOME QUESTIONS AS
WELL IN --
AND MISTER COOLEY NO I WAS --
THIS THAT MISTER GIBSON CLEAR
AND WONDERING WE KEEP TALKING
ABOUT LIVING COME TO SOME SORT
OF AGREEMENT BUT FOR INCHES
APART.
IS THAT POSSIBLY VOTE TO BE ABLE
TO GET THEIR AT THAT TODAY --
AND I DON'T KNOW MISTER COOL IF
YOU GOT ANY SUGGESTIONS ON PINE
LANGUAGE --
OR IF NOT WE NEED TO GO BACK BUT
WELL I HAVE MY EXPERT HERE TODAY
AND PERHAPS --
WE CAN HAVE HIM A DISCUSS WITH
MISTER COOLEY I FRANKLY THINK
THAT -- THAT
THERE IS SOME VALIDITY TO THAT
CONCERNED --
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'LL
SATISFY THE OPPOSITION KEEPS
INSISTING WE USE THE NEGATIVE
TERM. FOR WE WOULD JUST ONE A
SORT OF IMPRINT THE LANGUAGE OF
THE CASE LAW WHICH IS GOOD WHICH
YOU FOR A PERIOD OF FORTY FIVE
YEARS HAS BEEN THE LAW --
OR FIFTY FIVE YEARS NOW FIFTY
FIVE YEARS HAS BEEN.
THE LAW I'D I DON'T WANNA UPSET
THAT -- SO --
BUT I'M CERTAINLY I THINK THAT --
IF IF REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN
AGREE WE'VE TAKEN AN AMENDMENT
THAT.
ADDRESS THAT CAME A LONG WAY I
THOUGHT SORENSEN OPPOSITION
BECAUSE THE BIG CONCERN THEY
WERE TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT ABOUT --
ISSUES WHERE YOU REALLY NOT
ENTITLED TO FIRE COVERAGE AND
THAT ISN'T MY GOAL MICHAEL WAS
IF YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IT.
THEN YOU CAN GET A YEAR
INSURANCE WILL COVER THE THESE
THE DEBRIS FLOW THAT IS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE AND SO WE TOOK
THAT LANGUAGE AND AND I I
BELIEVE THAT THAT DEALT WITH
WHAT I THINK IS THE REAL ISSUE.
BUT WERE HAPPY TO TALK I I THINK
THE ARGUMENT THAT'S MADE THAT'S
BEING MADE --
HIS.
IT IS WAS GONNA TAKE SOME
DISCUSSION BUT I THINK MR
COOLIES THE CONCERN IS A I THINK
IS A IS WELL TAKEN.
AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO TRY TO
ADDRESS THAT SO WE GOT KEEP
WORKING OF BUT I THINK THAT --
AYE WE CAN TRY TO DO THAT TODAY
IF IF MY MILTON WHO JUST FOOD
THE COMMENT THAT --
THE WHOLE CASE IN THE GARVEY
CASE BOTH --
MAKE REFERENCE I BELIEVE MISTER
COOLEY TO THE STATUTES AND YOU
KNOW IN RECITING THE LANGUAGE
FROM THE WHOLE CASE A AND
INCORPORATING THEM --
ESSENTIALLY WE ARE IN
INCORPORATING THE BETTER YOU
COULD.
YOU KNOW MAKE THE SAME REFERENCE
PERHAPS [inaudible]
SO.
FIRST PERSONALLY I AND AND THIS
IS JUST ME REFLECTING UPON THIS
I WOULD JUST STATE THE RULE
[inaudible]
AS IS YOU RESULT STATUTE DOES
NOT CONCUR BECAUSE EACH ONE BUT
THE FIRE FOLLOWING.
NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION TWENTY
EIGHTY ONE TWENTY EIGHTY ONE IS
A BIG PROVISION INSURANCE CODE
THAT DEFINES A FIRE POLICY
GENERALLY.
SO YOU'RE SAYING.
BY STATUTE WE SAY WHAT FIRE
COVERAGE IS.
NOT WITHSTANDING THAT YOU CAN'T
YOU CAN'T BUILD ARE GOING ON
TWENTY ONE A LANDSLIDE MUD SLIDE
MY VOTE TO BRING FLOOR OTHER
SUMMER EARTH MOVEMENT.
WHICH IS CAUSED BY OR FOLLOWS A
FIRE.
DOES NOT EXEMPT ENSURE FROM ITS
OBLIGATION UNDER FIRE INSURANCE
POLICY TO COVER THE LOSSES.
SO I THINK A VERY.
TAILORED STATEMENT THAT JUST
SAYS.
IF YOU HAVE THE SORTS A LOSSES
ARISING FROM A FIRE [inaudible]
THEY'RE COVERED [inaudible]
AND THAT.
THAT GET YOU OUT OF THE REALM OF
DEBATE OVER WHAT WAS THE
OFFICIAL PROXIMATE CAUSE.
HE JUST SAYS WELL IF YOU GOT THE
FACT PATTERN OF A FIRE.
AND THESE THINGS INTO.
IT IS CONTEMPLATE WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF A FIRE POLICY UNDER.
TWENTY EIGHTY ONE I THINK THAT.
FORD'S GOOD COVERAGE.
IF FRANKLY [inaudible]
TEN PARDON ME. FOR MANY MANY
DECADES UNDER MARK REISNER IS
BOOK A DANGEROUS PLACE WHICH IS
ABOUT CALIFORNIA.
AND THE SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS
THAT TRANSVERSELY RANGE
[inaudible]
SO DRY.
VERY STEEP CANYONS VERY STEEPER
BRAINS.
THE WHOLE HYDROLOGY OF THE SOUTH
FACE OF THE SAN GABRIELS IS SUCH.
THAT ONCE WATER SEARCH RUNNING
DOWNHILL IT IS A TREMENDOUS
PROBLEM.
AND SO MUCH OF THE WORK.
AND THE WATER SYSTEM IN THERE
REVENGE OF SOUTHERN COMFORT KIND
OF CONTROL THAT CONTROLLED
MUDFLOWS CONTROL THE BOULDERS.
THAT GOES BACK TO THE THIRTIES.
SO I THINK THERE'S A LIMITS
PAYROLL.
THAT EXIST THERE ARE RISING FROM
THE EXPANDING DOWN RESISTS
BURGER I THINK FOR THOSE
MOUNTAINS.
I ACTUALLY THINK YOU'RE GAINING
SOMETHING. TO STATE CLEARLY THAT.
SOMETHING TO WRITE YOU KNOW YOU
HAVE A FIRE IN THE SINGS IN SU
YOU'VE GOT COVERAGE I IF IF I
JUST DATA PASTA I JUST YOU KNOW
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE
OF THE YOU KNOW PERHAPS WE COULD
WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT NOW.
IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT
THAN WHAT WE HAVE LIPS DRAFTED
HERE AND YOU KNOW THERE MIGHT
BET.
AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE TO
SENATOR KERRY.
WELL I I THINK RATHER THAN TRY.
TO NEGOTIATED THIS MOMENT I LIKE
I SAID I THINK I'VE BEEN CLEAR
WHEN I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IF
WE CAN DO THAT.
I'M HAPPY.
TO DEAL WITH THE LANGUAGE SHOULD
THAT'S GOING TO ACHIEVE THAT
GOAL AND REACH.
A YOU KNOW AGAIN IT IS AS LONG
AS WE ALL ARE ARGUING DEBATING
IT AND WORKING IN GOOD FAITH TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL.
I AM A HUNDRED AND 20% COMMITTED
TO THAT.
IT'S FRAZIER THANK YOU AND
SENATOR I JUST I APPRECIATE IT
YOU KNOW ALL THE COACHING THAT
I'VE DONE FOR MR COOLIES WORKOUT.
AND I'M SURE HE APPRECIATES IT
AS WELL DOES --
AGAIN.
I REALLY DO ADMIRE MISTER COOLEY
FOR HIS CAUSE THOUGHTFUL
COMMENTS IN HIS HAS EXPERTISE
AND I ACTUALLY DO.
A UTILIZE A LOT OF HIS
INFORMATION THROUGH COMMITTEE --
BECAUSE OF HIS PROFESSIONALISM.
OF ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT
TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT ALSO IS
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ON
CONSUMER.
OR THE INSURED HANDED WHEAT
LOOKING IDENTIFIED THAT WE'RE
NOT.
PUMMELING IN THEM WITH THE
OPPORTUNITY OF OF HIGHER
PREMIUMS BECAUSE OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEM
BUT ALSO NOT PERSECUTE THEM IN
THEIR POCKETBOOK.
WHICH IS WHY THIS BILL IS SO
SIMPLE AND BASICALLY SIMPLY
REAFFIRMED THE CASE LAW BECAUSE
I DON'T WANT ANY UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE I WANT CLARITY.
I WANT CONSISTENCY AND I WANT
THE FOLKS WHO ARE A SUFFERING
THROUGH THESE EXTRAORDINARY
TRAGEDIES AND AS WAS MENTIONED A
THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING --
WITH OUR CLIMATE CHANGE WITH THE
FIRES THAT ARE BURNING KNOW THIS
FIRE THAT LARGEST.
WILDFIRE IN CALIFORNIA HISTORY
WHICH WAS IN MY DISTRICT A
OCCURRED IN DECEMBER.
A UNHEARD OFF IN CALIFORNIA.
A TO HAVE A FIRE IN DECEMBER SO
WE HAVE NOW A TWELVE MONTH THE
YEAR FIRE SEASON.
TINDER DRY WEATHER --
THE THE HUMIDITY AT CERTAIN
POINTS WHEN THIS 1%.
MEAN A THING SAID ARE ABSOLUTELY
CATASTROPHIC IN THE WHOLE STATE
IS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO THESE
PROBLEMS SO THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY
PAY THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS
WHATEVER THEY ARE.
SHOULD HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO BE COVERED IF
THESE THE A MAJOR CAP
CATASTROPHES.
A OCCUR AND AND EVERYONE SHOULD
BE CLEAR AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
TRYING TO GET IS THAT CLARITY
BASED UPON WHAT HAS BEEN CASE
LAW ON THE STATE FOR THE LAST
FIFTY YEARS.
THAT'S THE GOAL WHEN IT AGAIN
WE'VE WE'VE UNDERSTOOD MS STONE
TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY --
INSURANCE COMPANY THAT HAS
RAPIDLY REFUSED TO TO RESPOND TO
YOUR INCIDENT IN YOUR DISTRICT
WELL WE CANNOT CLARIFY THAT NO
NO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF INSURANCE
COMPANIES THAT HAVE NOT RESOLVED
THESE CLAIMS YET THAT THEY'RE
STILL OUT FOR CONSIDERATION.
AND THAT IS TWO SIDES TO A STORY
AND IT COULD BE ALSO THE INSURED
WHOSE.
THEY'VE BEEN UP A PROBLEM ALSO
THAT SO I GUESS IT'S NOT ALWAYS
SURE INSURANCE CO AND A AND
THAT'S WHY HAS THE WITNESS COME
TODAY WHO'S BEEN DOING THIS SO
IF THERE'S CLARITY IT HELPS
EVERYBODY [inaudible]
YEAH.
SO I THINK IF A BUG BUT WE NEED
A MOTION HERE BUT DAMN.
IF I WAS TO MAKE MOTION SOUNDS
LIKE THAT FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD
FROM THE COMMITTEE THERE
SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT COOLEY
WAS SUGGESTING IS PROBABLY WHERE
WE WANT TO GET TOO OBVIOUSLY
YOU'RE THE AUTHOR NAM AND YOU'VE
ALSO COMMITTED TO CONTINUE TO
WORK OUT WHAT WORK WITH FOLKS --
BUT WITH THAT I WILL NAM
ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
THEN SHARED HER.
YEAH MIKE'S --
THE CHAIR'S RECOMMENDATION IS
AYE WITH THE AMENDMENT --
AND I DO TAKE --
THE SENATOR AT HER WORD THAT
SHE'S GOING TO CAN WELL I'LL
HAVE THE ABILITY TO RETHINK IT
ON THE FLOOR DEPENDING ON WHAT.
WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND
THEN SO I MOVED THAT DID I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHURCH
RECOMMENDATIONS AND I WITHIN THE
AMENDMENT?
SOME OF THAT.
ALRIGHT SO WE HAVE A A MOTION BY
CARRIER O. AND THE SECOND BY
CALDERON AND IS THERE ANY OTHER.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE
MOTION [inaudible]
IF.
IF NOT OF PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
[inaudible]
DALY [inaudible]
MAYES [inaudible]
NOBODY [inaudible]
BIGELOW [inaudible]
CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE CALDERON.
CALDERON AYE CHEN.
CHEN NOTE CHIU [inaudible]
I CHU AYE COOLEY.
AMERICA HORROR FEW WHO HITS
[inaudible]
COOPER [inaudible]
FRAZIER.
GIPSON --
GIPSON AYE GRAYSON [inaudible]
HARPER ELTON.
GRAYSON AYE HARPER [inaudible]
ABOUT.
BUT AS WE NEED TO I'M SORRY WHAT
THE SEVEN SO TO SEVEN FISCALLY
THAT.
SEVEN SO ARE YOU GOT.
A FIVE VOTE SOME LOOKS LIKE --
PROBABLY SIT ON CALL THANK YOU
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR A
LENGTHY DISCUSSION AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK ON
THIS.
THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT SO WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM
NUMBER ONE A DOCTOR PAN IS HE
HERE DOCTOR PAN HERE.
WELL DODD JUST WALKED IN
HONORING
[inaudible]
YOU.
BUT SENATOR BUT I I THINK THE
THE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS
PARTICULAR ITEM IS TO WAIT UNTIL
THE CHAIR ARM COMES BACK BECAUSE
HE WANTED TO HAVE SOME DIALOGUE
IN REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR
BILL AND SO IF IT BE OKAY --
TOTO AWAY FOR A LITTLE BIT AND
WE CAN MOVE TO ANOTHER ITEM IF
THAT'S EVER PLEASES THE CHAIR
LARA [inaudible]
YOU DON'T [inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
DESPITE.
SO WE HAVE [inaudible]
YEAH.
AND THAT ITEM NUMBER THREE THE
SP NINETY EIGHT HAS BEEN PULLED.
ITEM NUMBER [inaudible]
THREE AS IMPORTANT
[inaudible]
REYES [inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
YEAH. ONE COULD N'T
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
SO WITH A MY FRIEND
[inaudible]
YEAH
[inaudible]
ONE PARA READY
WHEN YOU ARE BUT IT'S THE A IT
LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE NOT QUITE
READY [inaudible]
OKAY
.
DO YOU THINK OF THE 99%.
BUT YOU WOULD LIKE TAKE EIGHT
NINETY NINE FIRST GALLAGHER.
OKAY LET'S DO THAT.
I LET'S GET BACK IN ORDER HERE.
I MOVE INTO THE TO ITEM NUMBER.
FOUR A S. B. EIGHT NINETY NINE A
DOCTOR BAND FORGERS OKAY THANK
YOU.
SIR VICE CHAIR MEMBERS I THANK
YOU FOR A LET ME PRESENT S. B.
EIGHT NINE NINE A BILL THAT
SEEKS TO PROVIDE.
BRING CLARITY TO THE PROCESS OF
A PORTION IN AND AND
CALIFORNIA'S WORKER'S
COMPENSATION SYSTEM.
FIRST DIE WIVES --
EXCEPT THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS LISTEN ANALYSIS TO
ADDRESS A DRAFTING AIR --
THE PRACTICE OF APPORTIONMENT OR
REDUCTION OF WORKERS
COMPENSATION BENEFITS DUE TO NON
INDUSTRIAL FACTORS HAS BEEN A
PART OF OUR WORKERS COMPENSATION
SYSTEM SINCE.
TWO THOUSAND FIVE HOWEVER
CONTINUES TO BE AN AREA OF
DISPUTE IN LITIGATION LAST YEAR
THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN
THE CITY OF JACKSON THAT PER
PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS
CAN BE REDUCED ON THE BASIS.
OF GENETICS AND INHERITABLE
CHARACTERISTICS THE COURT
BELIEVES THAT THIS RULING WAS IN
KEEPING WITH ABOUT FIFTEEN YEARS
PRESIDENT.
UNFORTUNATELY DUE TO THE
STRUCTURE OF THE DECISION MAY
THE STAKEHOLDERS BELIEVE THAT
OPEN THE DOOR TO APARTMENT BASED
ON FACTORS ARE CURRENTLY THAT
ARE NOT CURRENTLY PERMITTED THAT
INCLUDES RACE GENDER AND
NATIONAL ORIGIN.
S. B. EIGHT NINETY NINE
ADDRESSES THIS CONCERN BY
EXPLICITLY EXCLUDING JET RACE
GENDER AND NATIONAL ORIGIN AS A
POSSIBLE FACTORS AFTER WORKING
WITH MANY STAKEHOLDERS FOR
NEARLY A YEAR I AM PROUD.
TO PORT THIS --
VERSION OF THE BILL IS --
AND HAD NO FORMAL OPPOSITION AS
SENATOR --
DO YOU HAVE WHEN YOU HAVE
WITNESSES.
OKAY WHEN SPORT WITNESSES IN
FAVOR.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
RESTRICTIONS NOT TO HEAR ABOUT
THE CALIFORNIA COALITION ON
WORKERS COMPENSATION REALLY
QUICKLY WERE IN STRONG SUPPORT
THE BILL.
YOU REMEMBER SEVERAL BILLS AND
THAT TOUCH THE SUBJECT COMING
BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE WE THINK
THIS IS A A RATHER ELEGANT
SOLUTION.
THAT VIRTUALLY ALL THOSE BILLS
WERE HAPPY TO BE HERE IN SPUR
TODAY THANK YOU.
BEAUTIFUL MOVE THE BILL SACK.
ANY OTHER PERSONS WISHING TO
SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE BILL.
ANY PERSON'S WISHING TO SPEAK
AGAINST THE BILL [inaudible]
OF WHICH LIKE TO CONCLUDE
SENATOR.
I JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
NIGHT THAT THANK YOU RATE ANY
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ALRIGHT LET'S VOTE THERE'S A
MOTION AND SECOND.
DALY I AYE MAYES MAYES I BIGELOW.
BIGELOW AYE CABALLERO
[inaudible]
CALDERON [inaudible]
CHEN [inaudible]
CHEN I CHIU ARE CUTE AYE COOLEY
AYE COOLEY AYE COOPER.
FRAZIER.
FRAZIER AYE GIPSON --
GIPSON AYE GRAYSON [inaudible]
HARPER.
THE BILL HAS EIGHT VOTES EIGHT
EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE VOTES THE
BILL'S PAST.
THANK YOU THANK YOU SENATOR.
ALL RIGHT IN YOUR NEXT BILL YES --
SP EIGHTY SO CAN THANK YOU CHAIR
MEMBERS ARE S. B. EIGHT EIGHTY
IS A BILL THAT SEEKS TO ASSIST
UNBANKED WORKERS IN ACCESSING TO
TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS
WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT THE LASER
FEES.
UNDER EXISTING LAW INJURED
WORKERS WHO ARE TEMPORARILY
DISABLED.
AND UNABLE TO WORK DUE TO
WORKPLACE ENTRY MUST RECEIVE A
TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFIT
WHICH SERVES AS A FORM OF
PARTIAL WAGE BENEFIT.
I TT BENEFIT CAN ONLY BE SENT TO
THE INJURED WORKER YOU BUY PAPER
CHECK OF THE PROTECT POSIT --
THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW THEM TO A
USING AT USE OF BENEFIT.
TO OUR CAR --
AND FACT A COUPLE STATES HAVE
SOME GOOD.
SURE IT'S PROGRAMS CREATE THE
PILOT PROGRAM --
ALL PLAYERS BE BE ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE.
ABSOLUTELY ASK WHEN I VOTE AND
WITNESSES SUPPORT.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS YOUR
MEMBERS ABOUT THE AMERICAN
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION IN LIEU OF
THE TO MOTIONS --
I WILL BE BRIEF WHICH IS TO SAY
THAT -- WE
WOULD ECHO --
DOCTOR PANTS COMMENTS WE THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD WE THINK IT BEAR BRINGS
BENEFITS FOR BOTH INJURED
WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS AND
INSURERS.
IT'S ONE OF THE BALANCE BILLS
WERE ALWAYS SEEKING IN THE
SYSTEM IT ALSO BUILDS ON A
NUMBER PROTECTIONS.
GIVES BOTH EMPLOYERS INSURERS
OPTIONS WHETHER THEY WANT ENGAGE
IN THE PROGRAM IT REQUIRES
WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE INJURED
WORKER SO THEY TO HAVE THAT
OPTION --
THERE ARE ALL THE FEES ARE BORNE
BY ARE ALMOST ALL THE FEES ARE
BORNE BY.
ON THE INJURED WORKER I'M SORRY
BY THE EMPLOYER AND THE INSURER --
ADDITIONALLY THIS IS A PILOT
PROJECT WILL BE BACK BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE AND THIS BODY IN THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS AFTER STUDIES
CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION ON
HEALTH SAFETY AND WORKERS
COMPENSATION SO.
A MEETING IT'S GOOD PIECE PUBLIC
POLICY AND URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SIR GO AHEAD AS
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS JOHN NOR WOULD
I BE HAVE A ZENITH INSURANCE
COMPANY --
COINCIDENTALLY ARC HE'S BEEN
DOING A LOT OF WORK IN THIS
SPACE HOPE.
THIS KIND OF AUTHORIZATION --
THEY INFORMED ME THAT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR
IRISH ISSUE TO THE STATE
CALIFORNIA FROM CHECKS THAT ARE
LOST -- ARE
MISPLACED --
AND THAT'S A BENEFIT THIS BILL
COULD TAKE CARE.
A LOT OF AGRICULTURE TURNS THERE
FOR A NUMBER WORKERS THEY DEAL
WITH ARE UNBANKED IN THOSE
WORKERS AND UP [inaudible]
ANDERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT
WHICH TAKE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS
WE FROM THEIR CHECKS THAT COULD
BE GOING TO MEALS AND FOOD AND
WE HAVE EXPENSES FOR THE FAMILY.
AND LASTLY THEIR WORKERS ARE ON
TV AND PREVENT TT --
OF THESE CARDS CAN BE RELOADED
REMOTELY AND THAT RESOLVES
ISSUES BUSINESS DAYS AND
HOLIDAYS AND THAT TYPE OF THINGS.
SO WE ARE VERY MUCH SUPPORT THIS
BILL THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK
YOU SIR OTHER.
PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE BILL HOW MISTER
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS BILL GAZA WHICH
REPRESENTING ENSURE CARD.
I ENSURE CARD IS THE LARGEST
NATIONAL PROVIDER OF BENEFITS BY
THIS MEANS.
AND HAS BEEN IN FACT PROVIDING
BENEFITS BY THIS MEANS IN
CALIFORNIA FOR THE PAST --
TEN YEARS.
BOB WE REQUEST A WE WOULD LIKE
TO REQUEST THAT RAISE ONE ISSUE
AND REQUEST AMENDMENT AND THAT
IS THAT WE ALL BELIEVE THAT THE
REQUIREMENT FOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
IS GOING TO MAKE THE PROGRAM.
OF MUCH LESS --
EFFECTIVE INSURE CARD OPERATES
IN FORTY SEVEN STATES ARE ONLY
SIX REQUIRE.
A WRITTEN CONSENT ET DE DOES NOT
REQUIRE WRITTEN CONSENT FOR
THESE BENEFITS SO.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT REQUIRE.
WRITTEN CONSENT WHAT WE THINK
AND THERE ARE A HOST OF NOBODY
NOBODY OBJECTS TO THE IDEA THAT
THE BENEFITS SHOULD ONLY BE
AVAILABLE.
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
RECIPIENT.
THE QUESTION IS DO YOU GAIN
ANYTHING BY PUTTING THE US A
STEP BEYOND TO REQUIRE THE
CONSENT TO BE.
ALL IN WRITING [inaudible]
BOMB.
IN THE A HOST OF CASES IN THE
UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW WHICH
CONSENT IS REQUIRED.
THE CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO
BE IN WRITING BECAUSE WHEN YOU
REQUIRE THE CONSENT IN WRITING
YOU HAVE TO SEND OUT A FORM IN
THE RECIPIENT HAS TO FILL IT OUT.
AND RETURN IT IN A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF CASES.
THAT'S JUST NOT GOING NOT GOING
TO HAPPEN AND THE ARM.
PERSON DOES NOT TO THE RECIPIENT
DOES NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE
ABOVE.
PROGRAM.
RIGHT IN THE INSURANCE WERE THE
TYPICAL PROCESS IS THE CONSENT
IS RECORDED IN THE CLAIMS FILE
SO WE REQUEST THE REMOVAL OF THE
WRITTEN CONCENTRIC GARMENT
ALTHOUGH AS I SAID WHY DON'T.
FOR A MOMENT DISPUTE THE
REQUIREMENT FOR CONSENT AND WE
DO SUPPORT THE BILL.
THANK YOU SIR ARE THERE OTHER
FOLKS WISHING I'D I DON'T THINK
WE WERE FINISHED WITH THE
SUPPORT.
PERSONS OTHER OTHER POKES
WISHING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT.
GO AHEAD PARK SEGMENT PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION
AMERICA AT LIGHT SPEED SUPPORT
THE BILL BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE
TO REFERENCE THAT COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS WOULD SUGGEST WE
CONTINUE.
WORKING OTHER WRITTEN CONSENT
DISMISS SORT OUT WHAT SAID IT'S
A HIGH STANDARD. FOR EXAMPLE ONE
OF OUR COMPANY THAT OPERATES IN
ALL THE FORTY SEVEN STATES
MISTER DOUBTS TALK ABOUT SAYS IS
A 30% TAKE UP RATES.
BUT WHEN YOU ADD WRITTEN CONSENT
THAT.
TAKE A BREAK DROPS 25% BRING
CONSENT MAY BE AN UNNECESSARY
BURDEN BECAUSE THIS IS A BENEFIT
TO THE INJURED WORKER THANK YOU.
THANK YOU OTHER PERSONS WISHING
TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN WAS
JASON SHELTER ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPENSATION I RESPECTFULLY
SUPPORTING THE BILL WITHOUT A
TIE [inaudible]
NNOVA.
YEAH LAURIE CAMERA WITHOUT A TIE.
LAURIE CAMERON BEHALF OF ANTHEM
OF WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
MEDICS HEALTHCARE AND ALSO --
AB ONE CALL MEDIC.
YEAH VERY GOOD FOR EMPLOYERS
AREN'T WE WITH SUPPORT NO FEES
IN THIS BILL THANK YOU.
THANK YOU OTHER PERSONS WISHING
TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE BILL.
OF ANY OTHER PERSONS WISHING TO
SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL.
WE HEARD FROM ONE AYE I MEAN THE
TWEETER CATEGORY MARGARET
LASTING CARE ABOUT FIRST ON
BEHALF OF FIRST DATA WERE GLOBAL
PAYMENT PROCESSOR ONE OF LARGE
PEER PROCESSORS THE WORLD WE
OFFER PAYROLL CARDS --
IN THAT CALIFORNIA FOR MANY
EMPLOYERS --
WE SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF THE
BILL IN THE THE OVERALL GOAL OF
THE BILL WE THINK IS VERY
LAUDABLE OUR PARTICULAR CONCERN.
THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE
RESTRICTION ON OUT OF NETWORK
ATM FEES IF A AN EMPLOYEE IS
BANKED -- IF
IF A WORKER IS PAINT --
AND THEY'RE USING THEIR REGULAR
ATM WE ALL DO UNFORTUNATELY WHEN
THAT.
WHEN WE USE THESE CARDS --
WE ALSO FEEL THAT OUR BIG
CONCERN IF IT UP EMPLOYEE IS
CURRENTLY GETTING A PAYROLL CARD
WHERE THEY MAY BE BEARING COSTS
FOR OUT OF NETWORK ATM FEESWE
WOULD IT COULD CREATE CONFUSION.
OR UNCERTAINTY FOR THEM THEY MAY
HAVE TO GET A NEW CAR.
IF THESE FEES ARE AND ARE
STRICTLY BAY AND SO WE REALLY
WANT TO SEE A WORKABLE PROGRAM --
WE'D LIKE TO AND WE VERY MUCH
WANT THE BILL TO CONTINUE WE
JUST THINK THAT THIS IS A
REALISTIC POINT FOR THE
COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER.
IN TERMS OF HOW THESE CARDS
WOULD WORK IN THE MARKETPLACE SO
I APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION
THANK YOU.
OTHER PERSONS WITH THE CONCERNS
ARE TWO WIENERS --
AND ALSO TO ENERGY SETTLING WITH
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION --
YOU HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE BILL --
THE BILL IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THE
VERY PRESCRIPTIVE WAY IT BANDS
OR RESTRICTS FEES THAT CAN BE
CHARGED ON THE PRODUCT --
EVEN IN THE STATES AYE EBT
PROGRAM AND ALSO IN THE STATES --
YOU AYE PROGRAM THERE IS NOTHING
IN STATUTE AS PRESCRIPTIVE AS
THIS AND THAT THAT'S A CONCERN
FOR US ISSUERS WILL WANT TO
PURCHASE.
PROGRAM AND THAT'S GOING TO
ULTIMATELY DRIVE UP COSTS --
IF FOR THE PROCESS I'M WE
ULTIMATELY BELIEVE IT AMENDMENT
SHOULD BE MADE TO THE BILL TO
ALLOW DE A AND THE DIRECTOR OF
THE DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE --
SORRY WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO
SET THE FEES RATHER THAN
MANDATING IT IN STATUTE AND FOR
THOSE REASONS WE WE'RE CONCERNED
WITH THE MEASURE.
OTHER PERSONS WITH CONCERNS
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN CLIFF
BURKE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE C.
USA -- WE
ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE MEASURE IN
THE THAT MEASURES GOAL OF
GETTING CARDS WE THINK OUR
TECHNOLOGIES BOTH.
MORE EFFICIENT MORE EFFECTIVE
CHEAPER GOVERNMENT SO WE THINK
THIS BILL IS A GOOD THING --
WE DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD ECHO
SOME OF THE COMMENTS YOU'VE
HEARD WE DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE
THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO PUT
INTO STATUTE WHICH FEES ARE OKAY
AND WHICH AREN'T.
THAT IT SHOULD BE LEFT TO IN
ESSENCE THE REGULATORY AGENCY
THROUGH THE RFP PROCESS OF THE
NEGOTIATION PROCESS OF THE
CONTRACT GENERALLY THAT IS WORK
WELL WITH YOU I AND OTHER STATE
PROGRAMS RECOGNIZING THIS IS
SORT OF A HYBRID PROGRAM.
AND IT'S A PILOT --
SO IT'S IT'S NOT AS CLEAR AS ONE
IS A STATE AGENCY BUT AGAIN WE
THINK PUTTING IN STATUTE
SPECIFIC FEES WALKING THOSE INTO
LAW TAKES AWAY FLEXIBILITY IN
CERTAIN THE GO SHADING WITH
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
AND I WAS JUST THE ADHESIVE DOES
NOT CHARGE ANY FEES [inaudible]
BANKS BUT WE DO NOT CHARGE ANY
FEES TO EITHER THE STATE OR THE
PRIVATE COMPANY IN THESE
PROGRAMS.
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN
DEVELOPING THEIR BUSINESS MODEL
HAS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEIR
COSTS ARE IN THERE FOR HAVING
SOME FLEXIBILITY RATHER THAN
WALK INTO STATUTE IS A GOOD
THING -- BUT
ANY WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE
BILL.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS --
OR CONCERNS EXPRESSED THERE ARE
NONE COMMITTEE MEMBERS DO YOU
HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE AUTHOR ON
THIS BILL.
ALRIGHT TO MISTER PAN WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CONCLUDE.
SAID I THANK YOU AND YEAH I
APPRECIATE THE THE SUPPORT TO
THE FOURTH FOR THIS BILL.
I THINK WHEN THE THINGS THAT --
WERE TRYING TO BE SURE IS IS
THAT -- THAT
THE THE EMPLOYEES WHO RECEIVING
THESE THAT DISABILITY BENEFITS --
WELL I GET THE FULL VALUE OF
THEIR BENEFITS THAT --
BY PARTICIPATING IN THIS THAT
THERE ISN'T SOME REDUCTION IN
VALUE BUT WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE I
KNOW THAT YOU KNOW WE ARE GONNA
CONTINUE WORK WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS TO ADDRESS THAT
THEIR CONCERNS ARE.
ON THE PILOT SO.
I I THINK HOPEFULLY WE CAN ALL
AGREE THAT THE WORKERS
THEMSELVES TO GET THE FULL
BENEFITS AND WILL HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT THAT THE REST OF THE THAT
THE POWER HOW WE GET A RAT.
HOW WE GET ABOUT THE IF WE ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE THANK YOU IN
SENATOR THANK YOU FOR COMMITTING
TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE?
THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE THE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE FEES AND SO
FORTH THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OF THIS AS OF THE RECOMMENDATION
OF SUPPORT FROM THE CHAIR.
THERE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS LET'S
SEPARATE WAS OUR MOTION AND
SECOND I THINK THERE WAS.
ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
DALY BY DALY AYE MAYES.
AYE MAYES AYE BIGELOW.
BIGELOW AYE CABALLERO
[inaudible]
CALDERON.
GEN.
CHEN AYE CHIU AYE CHU AYE COOLEY.
COOLEY AYE COOPER AYE COOPER AYE
FRAZIER.
FRAZIER AYE GIPSON.
GRAYSON AYE GRAYSON AYE HARPER
[inaudible] NINE ZERO NINE TWO
ZERO BILL PASSES THINK IS RIGHT
YOU SENATOR.
MR DOT I THINK KEY YOUR EUROPE.
WELCOME THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
LAST FALL LIFE FOR RESIDENTS OF
MY DISTRICT IN CENTER MAGUIRE'S
DISTRICT CHANGED FOREVER.
WHEN THE FIRES RIPPED THROUGH
THE NORTH DAY?
AS GOVERNOR BROWN SAID THIS IS
TRULY ONE OF THE GREATEST IF NOT
THE GREATEST TRAGEDY.
THE CALIFORNIANS HAD EVER FACED.
THE FIRE LEFT A PATH OF
DESTRUCTION IN ITS WAKE IN THE
NUMBERS ARE TRULY STAGGERING.
OVER THREE HUNDRED SQUARE MILES
BURNED OVER FORTY FOUR PEOPLE
DEAD.
NEARLY NINE THOUSAND STRUCTURES
DESTROYED IT LOSSES.
TALKING AYE THIS POINT MORE THAN
TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS.
WHAT IF IT'S OF THIS MAGNITUDE
OCCURRED THE STATE HAS A MORAL
IMPERATIVE TO ACT IN THIS BODY
HAS A MORAL IMPERATIVE TO ACT?
AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
AFFECTED AREA --
CENTER MCGUIRE AND I HAVE A
MORAL IMPERATIVE TO ACT.
S. B. EIGHT NINETY FOUR
GUARANTEES UP TO THREE YEARS OF
COVERAGE FOR LIVING EXPENSES.
IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE THE
ABOUT BUT THREE YEARS OF LIVING
EXPENSES ASSURES THAT INSURANCE
COMPANIES PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH
POLICY RENEWALS FOR AT LEAST TWO
YEARS FOLLOWING A DISASTER.
REQUIRES COMPANIES TO REPORT. TO
TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER IF
A NON RENEW OR PULL OUT OF A
MARKET.
IT WILL BE TELL IT.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN
IN THE SENATE --
DID THE MEMBERS ORTEGA IT LIMITS
RETROACTIVELY RETRO ACTIVITY. TO
JUST THE POLICY RENEWAL PORTION
OF THE BILL.
AND THIS IS A HUGE HIT TO MY
CONSTITUENTS WHO WON'T BE
PROTECTED BY THE MANY PROVISIONS
OF THIS BILL EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE
BEEN PAYING THEIR POLICY
PREMIUMS. FOR YEARS AND YEARS
AND YEARS OF THAT DECADES AND
DECADES.
AND ANOTHER --
RIGHT AMENDMENT TAKEN INSTEAD OF
ALLOWING IT SHIRTS TO COMBINE
COVERAGE A. B. AND C. TO COVER
THE COSTS OF REBUILDING.
AFTER NATURAL DISASTER --
WOULD BE LOOKED AT WITH THE
TOTAL LOSS THE BILL IS.
LIMITED TO COMBINE CLAIMS FOR
PROVEN LOSSES IN COVERAGE BEING
COVERAGE SEE.
AND USE THOSE FUNDS TO REPLACE
IF THEY DO NOT HAVE AN ENOUGH
PRIMARY COVERAGE COVERAGE A
INSURANCE COVERAGE.
NOW THESE AMENDMENTS NARROWED
THIS BILL INCREDIBLY.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
COMBINATION OF THE COVERAGE
PROVISION.
ONLY APPLIES WITH THERE'S THREE
CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MET
[inaudible]
DECLARED DISASTER.
A TOTAL LOSS HE AM INSUFFICIENT
COVERAGE IN THEIR PRIMARY
DWELLING COVERAGE TO COVER THE
COST OF REBUILDING.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THIS COMMITTEE
IS ASKING YOU TO TAKE A NUMBER
OF AMENDMENTS.
EVEN THOUGH IT IS DIFFICULT FOR
ME TO REMOVE THE RETROACTIVITY
IN THIS BILL.
I THINK BENEFITING EVERYONE IN
THE STATE GOING FORWARD IS TOO
IMPORTANT TO LET.
THAT PREVENT THIS BILL FROM
MOVING FORWARD.
I'M WILLING TO ACCEPT ALL THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
EXCEPT FOR I DO NOT WANT TO
REMOVE CONTENTS.
FROM SECTION.
THREE I DON'T WANT TO REMOVE
CONTENTS FROM SECTION THREE OF
THE BILL OR CREATE A NEW
SUBDIVISION BE.
IN SECTION THREE OF THE BILL.
SO THOSE OF THAT ONLY TWO
AMENDMENTS THAT --
I I DO WHAT DO NOT WANT TO TAKE
TODAY [inaudible]
REGARDING CONTENTS.
LET ME BE CLEAR.
WE'RE NOT ASKING INSURERS. TO
PAY MORE MONEY.
BUT RATHER ALLOW PEOPLE
FLEXIBILITY IN USING THE MONEY
FOR THEIR ACTUAL LOSSES TO
REBUILD THEIR HOMES AND
COMMUNITIES [inaudible]
SO AGAIN [inaudible]
WE'RE WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR
FLEXIBILITY WE'RE NOT ASKING THE
INSURERS TO PAY OUT ONE DOLLAR
MORE THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD
HAVE PAID OUT. FOR THE POLICIES.
REGARDING 30% OF COVERAGE A IN
MY VIEW AND IN THE CHURCH
COMMISSIONERS VIEW AND MANY
OTHER SENATE MCGUIRE WHO HAD A
BILL ON THIS AREA.
THIS ENDS UP BEING THE LAST.
THEN MOST OF WHAT THE INDUSTRY
DID FOLLOWING THE FIRES OF MY
DISTRICT LAST YEAR.
MANY COMPANIES GAVE 75% OF
COVERED SEE IT COVERED SEE IS
OFTEN 50%.
OF COVERAGE A WE BELIEVE THIS
WITH GIVING.
A LOWER PERCENTAGE THAN THEY
WOULD WITHOUT THE VERY
LEGISLATION.
THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TODAY.
SO WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER
TO MY WITNESS WITNESSES THANK
YOU.
MR PEROT --
MISTER CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS GOOD
MORNING ROBERT HERALDICALLY
COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE I'M JOINED TODAY BY A
CHIEF DEPUTY GILL LAUCH HER.
ARM IT WE'VE FIRST OF ALL WE
WHICH IS LIKE TO PROFUSELY THANK
SENATOR DODD CENTER MCGUIRE AND
THE OTHER MEMBERS PROJECT OF THE
NORTH BE DELEGATION --
WHO HAVE WORKED IN A COORDINATED
FASHION WITH THE DEPARTMENT --
THAT AFTER UNPRECEDENTED LOSSES --
SOME OF YOUR DISTRICTS ARE
ABLAZE AGAIN AS WE SPEAK --
AND IF YOUR DISTRICT IS NOT ON
FIRE PROBABLY ONE OF YOUR
NEIGHBORING DISTRICTS IS ON FIRE.
THE FIRE SEASON STARTED ALREADY
LAST WEEK LAKE COUNTY.
HAS BEEN HIT YEAR AFTER YEAR
AFTER YEAR THERE ARE THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
EVACUATED.
WHO ARE STILL LIVING IN SHELTERS
RIGHT NOW HOPING AND PRAYING
THAT THEIR HOMES DON'T BURN DOWN?
THE FIRE SURVIVORS COLLECTIVELY
NEED YOUR HELP.
THIS BILL WAS SIGNIFICANTLY
AMENDED ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS AS THE
SENATOR DISCUSSED [inaudible]
WOULD BE.%
RESULT IN A SITUATION THAT IS
FAR WEAKER THAN CURRENT PRACTICE.
EIGHTY ONE POINT 3%.
OF THE TOTAL LOSSES FROM LAST
YEAR'S DEVASTATING FIRES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
WERE WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES
THAT OFFERED.
AT LEAST 75% OF CONTENTS
COVERAGE OR MORE WITHOUT MAKING.
THE HOMEOWNERS THE SURVIVORS GO
THROUGH THE PAINFUL WHAT SENATOR
MCGUIRE HAS DESCRIBED AS A PTSD
TYPE OF EVENT.
PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH AN
ITEMIZED INVENTORY TO COUNT FOR
EVERY STOCK AND EVERY TOY AND
EVERY SPOON AND EVERYPLACE.
THAT YOU HAD IN YOUR HOME THEIR
WERE PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP AT THE
SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE WITH
BOXES.
WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THAT
TASK FOR MONTHS?
AND MANY OF THEM SAID THEY WERE
BARELY HALFWAY THROUGH.
SO WE ARE HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE
DETAILED INFORMATION BUT WE
WOULD URGE YOU TO PASS AS STRONG
A BILL AS POSSIBLE OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE.
AND ATTEMPT TO SEND A LIFELINE
TO THE SURVIVORS WHO ARE SO
DESPERATELY ASKING FOR IT WE
URGE YOUR SUPPORT [inaudible]
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
ALL THIS EVIDENCE AND ALLOWED
HER.
MISTER CHAIR TOWLE CHIEF DEPUTY
OF THE DEPARTMENT.
I DID NOT MEET --
SENATOR DODD HERE IN SACRAMENTO.
I MET HIM AT MULTIPLE.
EVENTS THAT WERE INTENDED TO
HELP.
CLAIMANTS FROM THE WILDFIRES
WHERE HE WAS WORKING WITH HIS
CONSTITUENTS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
THEY'RE WHAT THEY NEEDED AND
WHAT HE COULD DO TO HELP.
WITH THAT'S AYE ECHO OF THEIR
APPRECIATION TO SENATOR DODD FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD AND
FOR ALL THE WORK HE DID DIRECTLY
WITH THIS CONSTITUENTS.
IT WAS --
THESE EVENTS TO BRING OUT THE
BEST IN PEOPLE AND HERE TO SAVE --
SO MUCH FOR NOT ONLY FIRST REESE
BUT FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AT
EVERY LEVEL.
CITY OFFICIALS BUT COUNTY
OFFICIALS AND STAFF.
I'M HOPE I'M VERY HOPEFUL WILL
WERE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING HERE
AT THE STATE LEVEL.
BUT AS WAS EXPRESSED.
AS ALREADY AMENDED THIS BILL
WOULD NOT COST AND SUGARS
ANYMORE IN CLAIMS PAYMENT THAN
THEY ALREADY WOULD BE OBLIGED TO
PAY.
UNDER A STANDARD POLICY.
ALSO DOES AS SENATOR DODD SAID
IS GIVE FLEXIBILITY.
AND ANOTHER BENEFIT OF THIS
PARTICULAR BILL.
IS THAT THERE IS TYPICALLY A LOT
OF DEBATE OVER WHO BECAUSE THE
UNDER INSURANCE.
THIS KIND OF PUT THAT ASIDE.
AND LETS PEOPLE HOPEFULLY DEAL
WITH THE UNDER INSURANCE ISSUE.
WITHOUT ARGUING OF HOW DID THEY
BECOME UNDER INSURED IN THE
FIRST PLACE WAS THAT THE
INSURERS FAULT OR WAS THEIR OWN
RESPONSIBILITY.
I I WOULD ASK ALL OF YOU ARE YOU
COMPLETELY AWARE OF HOW YOU CAME
TO HAVE THE POLICY LIMITS YOU
HAVE ON YOUR OWN HOMEOWNERS
POLICY.
PEOPLE AREN'T REALLY.
COMPLETELY AWARE OF HOW THOSE
LIMITS GET OF WHERE THEY ARE.
AND WHEN THEY FIND THEMSELVES IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
THEY NEED HELP AND THEY'D
SOMETIMES A FREQUENTLY FIRST
THING ONE DOES IS BLOWING THE
INSURER THIS LOOKS FOR ANOTHER
SOLUTION.
ALLOWING PEOPLE TO PUT SOME OF
THEIR OTHER LIMITS TOWARDS THAT
UNDER INSURANCE PROBLEM.
WITHOUT THE LITIGATION OVER HOW
THEY GOT TO BE UNDER INSURED IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
BUT SERVES AN EVEN LARGER
PURPOSE THANK YOU.
OTHER OTHER PERSONS HERE WISHING
TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE BILL.
THINKING MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MARK OPEN DEL HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTIES OF NAFTA
MENACE YOU KNOW IT'S NOT A IN
SUPPORT.
THE EMBARRASSED ON BEHALF OF THE
FIFTY ONE EMPLOYEES OF MEDTRONIC
WHO LOST THEIR HOMES DUE TO THIS
DEVASTATING WILDFIRE WE JUST
WANT TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL AND THANK THE SENATOR FOR
HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE.
MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS AARON
EVANS ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS DAVID JONES
LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA
ENDS RESIDENTS THANK YOU.
OTHER PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK
AGAINST THE BILL.
THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
I WANT.
TO I WANT TO ESTABLISH SOMETHING
BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF
CONFUSION HAS BEEN CREATED. FOR
INSTANCE AN OFF SITE THE
MEDTRONIC.
EMPLOYEES.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS BILL.
THAT WOULD HELP [inaudible]
THOSE EMPLOYEES.
WHO SUFFERED FROM?
A PAST INCIDENT.
THIS IS ABOUT GOING FORWARD.
THIS IS ABOUT COVERAGE GOING
FORWARD I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY
THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS HAS
BEEN SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT.
IT'S GOING FORWARD SIR RIGHT
OKAY THANK YOU.
UP PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU.
CARA CROSS BUT THE PERSONAL
INSURANCE FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA TOGETHER ARE SIX
MEMBER COMPANIES RIGHT THE
MAJORITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS
INSURANCE POLICIES IN THE STATE.
ON GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU --
FOR HAVING ME HERE --
AT THE COMMITTEE KNOWS THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS WORKED
DILIGENTLY TO COMMIT TO COME UP
WITH SOLUTIONS AND TO REACH A
CONSENSUS ON A GREAT NUMBER OF
BILLS A SESSION.
RESPONDING RESPONDING TO THE
TWENTY SEVENTEEN FIRES.
WELL WE HAVE TRIED VERY HARD TO
FIND A SOLUTION FOR S. B. NINETY
FOUR AS WELL UNFORTUNATELY AT
THIS JUNCTURE WE MUST CONTINUE
TO OPPOSE LESS AMENDED SB --
EIGHT NINETY FOUR SP NINETY FOUR
ACTUALLY HARM CONSUMERS BY
REDUCING THEIR CHOICE OF
INSURANCE PRODUCTION SHOULD THEY
SUFFER A LOSS TO THEIR HOME.
THE BILL THREATENS CONTENTS
COVERAGE AVAILABLE TO HOMEOWNERS
AS WELL AS IN THE CENTRAL LIVING
EXPENSE COVERAGE KNOWN AS
ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSE
COVERAGE OR A ONLY.
REGARDING THE CONTENT.
U. S. B. ID FOUR WOULD FORCE THE
COMBINATION OF COVERAGES BY
COMBINING APPLES AND ORANGES.
THIS OF THE FLAWED ATTEMPT TO
ADDRESS INSUFFICIENT TROUBLING
COVERAGE THAT COULD HAVE THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF
ACTUALLY RESULTING UNDER
INSURANCE.
FURTHER IF DIFFERENT COVERED
FURTHER IF INSURANCE CANNOT TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT THEIR ACTUAL LOSS
EXPERIENCE FOR DIFFERENT
COVERAGES.
IT WILL EITHER BE FORCED
INCREASE PREMIUMS OR NOT OFFER
MORE GENEROUS COVERAGE.
THIS WILL IMPACT ALL
CALIFORNIANS HOMEOWNERS.
WE HAVE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT
WOULD ALLOW THE COMBINATION OF
COVERAGE A AND B. THIS THE BIG
CONCESSION ON THE INDUSTRY PUTS
PART.
BUT INSTEAD OF AWKWARD IT WOULD
INSTEAD OF AWKWARDLY FORCING
COMBINATION OF CONTENTS COVERAGE
WOULD PROVIDE HOMEOWNERS A
PERCENTAGE OF CONTENTS COVERAGE
WITHOUT PROVIDING AN INVENTORY.
SO I KNOW THAT MR HER RAIL HAS
SPOKEN TO THE INVENTORY ISSUE
AND RIGHT NOW IT THIS BILL DOES
NOT ADDRESS INVENTORY OUR
PROPOSAL ALSO WOULD MAKE IT MUCH
SIMPLER PROCESS.
IN THAT --
IN THAT HOMEOWNERS COULD SUBMIT
25% OR ASK 425% OF THEIR INCOME
OF THEIR CONTENTS COVERAGE PUT
OUT INVENTORY THAT CONTENTS --
COVERAGE OF 25% COULD BE USED IN
ANY WAY.
SO I'M BUT UNFORTUNATELY THESE
AMENDMENTS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED.
I ALSO --
WANNA GO INTO ANOTHER ISSUE THAT
HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED THIS MUCH
AND THAT'S THE DIVISIONAL LIVING
EXPENSE ISSUE.
I WANT TO STRONGLY EMPHASIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF NOT JEOPARDIZING
THIS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT SAFETY
NET FOR HOMEOWNERS IN THE EVENT
THAT THEY LOSE THEIR HOME.
HOMEOWNERS ARE MOST AFRAID AND
DESPONDENT WHEN THEY INITIALLY
LOSE THEIR HOME AND NEED A PLACE
TO LIVE.
DALY IS A SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO
HELP HOMEOWNERS GET BACK ON
THEIR FEET BY PROVIDING FUNDS
FOR HOUSING FURNISHING AND OTHER
LIVING EXPENSES SPEAK OUT THEY
TRY TO REBUILD THEIR HOMES AND
THEIR LIVES.
IN ITS CURRENT FORM SB EIGHT
NINETY FOUR OVER SO RESULT IN
HOMEOWNERS LOSING THEIR ABILITY
TO OBTAIN MORE GENEROUS ALIE
BENEFITS.
MANY COMPANIES OFFER A ONLY
POLICIES THAT HAVE NO DOLLAR
LIMITS SO THAT HOMEOWNERS CAN
KEEP THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING.
THIS IS A HUGE BENEFIT THAT WILL
NO LONGER BE OFFERED BY MANY
COMPANIES THEY CANNOT COLLECT
PREMIUM FOR IT.
S. B. NINETY FOUR COULD TRIPLE
PAYOUTS FOR DAILY POLICIES
WITHOUT DOLLAR LIMITS.
COMPANIES DO NOT COLLECT PREMIUM
FOR THIS THE IMPACT WILL BE THE
COMPANIES WILL STOP OFFERING
THIS COVERAGE.
THE INDUSTRY'S AGREED IN A STATE
OF EMERGENCY TO EXTEND A ONLY
COVERAGE UP TO THIRTY SIX MONTHS
FOR A ONLY POLICIES WITH DOLLAR
LIMITS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MR DOGS
AS UNDERDOGS ASK OR HOWEVER
APPLIANCE EXTENSION TO POLICIES
WITH OUT DOLLAR LIMITS MAKES NO
SENSE AND WILL RESULT IN
HOMEOWNERS LOSING THIS IMPORTANT
BENEFIT THAT ALLOWS FROM SOME
NORMALCY IN THEM.
IN THEIR LIVES FOR THESE REASONS
THAT I'VE DISCUSSED WE ASK YOUR
NO VOTE ON THIS BILL TODAY THANK
YOU.
THE OTHER PERSONS IN OPPOSITION.
THE CHAIRMAN OUR MONTHLY CHANNEL
BICU HAVE A PROPERTY CASUALTY
INSURERS HOA THANK SENATOR DODD
AND STAFF.
AND THE COMMITTEE I THINK WHAT I
HEARD IS THAT THE RETROS COMING
OUT AND IF IT IS THEN THAT WILL
GO A LONG WAY FROM MY
ORGANIZATION.
WAS I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER
AMENDMENTS ARE BEING CONSIDERED
THIS POINT BUT I SAW ME ASSURE
YOU THAT.
I WE APPRECIATE THE RETRO COMING
UP THANK YOU.
CATHERINE PAY BUT AMERICAN
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION WE
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE AND ALSO THE WORK THAT
THEY ARE AUTHOR HAS DONE ON IT --
SIMILAR CONCERNS TO WHAT MY
COLLEAGUE FROM A PERSONAL SHIRTS
FEDERATION MENTIONED --
AND JUST AS A POINT OF
CLARIFICATION ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS --
SO INSURERS HAVE PREVIOUSLY DONE
NEXT RELATED CLAIMS HANDLING
WHICH WITH 25% OF C. NOT
SOMETHING MANY ADOPTED INTO THE
AMENDMENT THAT --
INSURERS HAVE OFFERED IS 25% OF
A WHICH IS ACTUALLY
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT AND IT
DOES ST OPERATED HOMEOWNERS
SIMILARLY INSTEAD OF DIFFERENT
AND DEPENDING ON DIFFERENT WHAT
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF A COVERAGE
SEARS.
AND FINALLY I WOULD ALSO SAY
THAT -- WE
CERTAINLY A MEMBERS HAVE
SYMPATHY TO THE NOTION OF HAVING --
ALL YOUR DIFFERENT COVERAGES BE
USED FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT THERE
ARE POLICIES THAT ARE OUT THERE
AND THEY ARE AVAILABLE ON THE
PEOPLE ALSO MAKE THOSE CHOICES
AND THEY ARE EXPENSIVE.
SO WITH THOSE AYE WE WOULD ECHO
PIPS.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER PERSONS
PLEASE GOOD MORNING SHERRY MCKEE
REPRESENT THE PACIFIC
ASSOCIATION DOMESTIC INSURANCE
COMPANIES WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO
THINK THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR
FOR WORKING WITH US FOR THE
MOMENT THEY HAVE TAKEN --
IF WHEN THE RETRO I'M ACTIVITY
LANGUAGE COMES OUT AND WE WILL
TAKE A LOOK AT THE BILL AND HOPE
TREATMENT PROPOSITION IF
POSSIBLE THANK YOU.
MARIA GARCIA BEHALF A STATE FARM
INSURANCE ALSO REGRETTABLY STILL
UP AMENDED AND AT GRATEFUL TO
THE AUTHOR TO WHERE HE'S BEEN SO
FAR BUT FOR THE REASON SAID MISS
CROSS ARTICULATED PACIFIC LEAD
TO THE ALLEY PROVISIONS WITHOUT
THE DOLLAR LIMITS.
AND AND THEN THE COMBINATION OF
CONTENTS COVERAGE.
GERMAN MEMBERS JOHN NOR WOULD I
BE HEALTH OF LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY I JUST WANT
WAY IN BRIEFLY ON THE ALE
ISSUE NO PROBLEMS EXTENDING.
ELLIE FROM TWO YEARS THREE YEARS
FOR POLICIES THAT HAVE A CAP ON
WHAT DOLLAR CAP BUT LIVERIES
POLICIES DON'T HAVE A DOLLAR CAP
IS THIS BILL WOULD RESULT IN.
THAT PROCESS A 50% INCREASE DALY
PAYMENTS --
SO I SUSPECT THE REACTION OF
MANY JURORS WOULD BE --
TO IS TO CAPS ON THEIR A ONLY A
IN RESPONSES.
SO MY WILL THAT IS POSITIVE FOR
CONSUMERS.
SO FOR THE FOR THOSE REASONS
WERE CONCERNED MAKE IT.
MANY OTHER PERSONS WISHING TO
SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL.
A I'M GONNA ASK YOUR THE
COMMITTEE.
A CONSULTANT COMMITTEE STAFF TO
SUMMARIZE THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
I'M [inaudible]
WE REALLY THERE'S NOT NUMEROUS%
AMENDMENTS THAT AS AN AMENDMENT
TO STRIKE THE RETROACTIVITY
PROVISION I'M.
NOT A HOW TO PRESENT CLEAR OF
THE AUTHORS ALREADY ACCEPTED OR
NOT BUT WOOD TO MOVE ON THERE'S
A COUPLE OF FAIRLY TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS BUT REALLY --
IT AT AT THE POLICY LEVEL
THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE
AMENDMENTS DAD THE COMMITTEE HAS
PROPOSED.
THE BILL'S PRIMARY GOAL ASIDE
FROM A COUPLE OF ANCILLARY
PROVISIONS.
IS TO ALLOW A POLICY HOLDER TO
USE THE VALUE OF OTHER
STRUCTURES AND CONTENTS
COVERAGES THAT NORMALLY.
IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR REBUILDING
THE HOME.
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE POLICY.
THE BILL PROPOSES TO DO THAT BY
SIMPLY SAYING THE INSURANCE
COMPANY PASSED THE RIGHT THE
VALUE OF THOSE COVERAGES WITHOUT
COMPLYING WITH THE POLICY COME
PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE
REPLACEMENT.
AND JUST GIVE CASH MONEY.
THAT CREATES A NUMBER OF
PROBLEMS FOR THE INSURERS
[inaudible]
SO.
THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING
PROPOSED IS DESIGNED TO
ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING.
WITH A DIFFERENT METHOD.
BEEN DIFFERENT MATH DID IS THAT
[inaudible]
A FORMULA.
IN DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE
FORMULA IS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
ALL SORTS OF FORMULAS WE
PROPOSED A FORMULA.
BASED ON 30% OF COVERAGE SEE.
SO APPROXIMATING AMOUNT UP MOST
POLICY HOLDERS ARE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO CLAIM.
AND THEY WOULD GET THAT AMOUNT
OF MONEY TO APPLY TO THEIR UNDER
INSURANCE IN COVERAGE A A AS MR
LOUNGER DESCRIBED WE'RE NOT
GONNA GET INTO THE DEBATE ABOUT
WHY THEY'RE UNINSURED MOSTLY THE
DEMAND SEARCH MAYBE.
BUT WHAT.
THE AMENDMENT PROPOSES A
DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY TO DO THE
SAME THING --
AND IT IN ADDITION TO A
DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY TO
ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING.
IT SOLVES THE PTS DE.
INVENTORY ALL YOUR CONTENTS BOMB
ISSUE THAT THE WITNESS IN THE
SENATOR HAVE TALKED ABOUT.
DID YOU GET THE EXACT SAME
NUMBER OF DOLLARS AND CENTS
SHIFTED FROM COVERAGE BNC OVER
TO COVERAGE DAY.
IT MAY NOT BUT IT'S A
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR
THAT SAME PURPOSE --
AND ADDITIONALLY PROVIDING
RELIEF FROM THE INVENTORY
REQUIREMENTS.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE THERE
QUESTIONS OF WHO.
ARM OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
COMMITTEES PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
[inaudible]
ANY QUESTIONS.
ARE THEY CLEAR.
I BELIEVE THEY ARE --
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS.
OF THE AUTHOR.
AT THIS POINT.
MISTER GIBSON MISTER GRAYSON.
WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH I'M
UNCLEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT OF THE
INDUSTRY.
HAS INDICATED.
REGARDING WHAT'S IN JEOPARDY
AROUND THE ALE BECAUSE I
HAPPEN TO KNOW THEY REALLY IS
VERY VERY IMPORTANT --
TO INDIVIDUALS WHO SUFFERS SOME
KIND OF LOSS OF THEIR HOME.
OF YOU KNOW PEOPLE'S HOMES ARE
MOSTLY THEIR RETIREMENT IS WHAT
THEY SEEK A LOT OF MONEY INTO
AND TREASURE THE MOST.
AND I KNOW THAT FOR ONE WHO HAS.
HAS SUFFERED A SITUATION DALY
VERY VERY HELPFUL [inaudible]
AND I'M PRIZE THAT --
INDUSTRY WAS SAILED OPPOSITION
WOULD SAY THAT.
CAN YOU UNLESS YOU ARTICULATE.
FOR ME WHAT WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY
BECAUSE I HEARD CAPS ARE HEARD
REMOVAL THEY'LL THE CAN YOU
ARTICULATE THAT PIECE BECAUSE
THAT'S VERY.
CONCERNED BECAUSE THAT'S THE
MONEY THAT HELPS PEOPLE CONTINUE
TO LIVE WHILE THEIR HOUSE OR
HOME IS BEING REBUILT AND THAT
WHOLE.
SITUATION SO CAN YOU ARTICULATE --
YOUR POINT AROUND ALIEN THAT I
LIKE TO HEAR FROM.
SENATOR DODD OR HIS WERE.
SURE HAPPY.
TO SO WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IS
A ONLY THAT DOES NOT HAVE A
DOLLAR CAP.
SO WITH THAT ADVANTAGE ABOUT IS
IS THAT IT ALLOWS A HOMEOWNER
WHO HAS LOST THEIR HOME TO HAVE
OBTAINED THE SAME LIVING
STANDARDS THEY CURRENTLY HAVE.
IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THAT WOULD
NECESSARILY HAPPEN WITH A DOLLAR
LIMIT POLICY BUT IT DEFINITELY
GIVES MUCH MORE OF AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN.
THE ABILITY TO HAVE YOUR SAME
STANDARD OF LIVING IT'S A VERY
GENEROUS POLICY AND IT'S OFFERED
BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF PITS
MEMBER COMPANIES [inaudible]
IF THE IF THERE IS A LOT.
I'M AN EXTENSION ON TIME THAT'S
GOING TO EXTEND HOW MUCH THE
COMPANIES ARE PAYING OUT
UNLIMITED DOLLARS THEY'RE NOT
PRICING FOR THAT RIGHT NOW.
IF THEY'RE UNABLE TO PRICE FOR
IT THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE
REASSESSING WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'RE GONNA OFFER THAT KIND OF
A BENEFIT A VERY GOOD BENEFIT.
TO HOMEOWNERS ABOUT THE HAVE
SOME COMPANIES ARE ALREADY
LOOKING AT WHETHER THEY'RE GONNA
BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THAT KIND OF
BENEFIT IF THIS BILL PASSES WAS
NO MORE.
PUTTING A CAP IT'S WHETHER THAT
THEY DON'T EVEN OFFER IT.
THAT PARTICULAR KIND OF A LAKE
COVERAGE YES OKAY THAT DOESN'T
MEAN IT WILL IT WILL NEVER BE
AVAILABLE THAT MISTER CHAIR IF I
CAN JUST HAVE SENATOR.
D'AMATO HEADLEY'S OR GO HAS
REPRESENTATIVES I MAY JUST MAKE
ONE POINT ALTERNATE.
THE BILL BEFORE YOU TODAY THE
QUESTIONS YOU ASKED.
THAT THE COMMITTEE OR THE
COMMITTEE STAFF HAS NOT CHANGED.
CURRENT PROVISIONS OF THE A. L.
E..
SO THAT'S HIM THAT'S IN THE BILL
OBVIOUSLY THE OPPOSITION DOES
NOT LIKE THAT RIGHT MISTER DODDS
BILL EXPANDS [inaudible]
AILEY COVERAGE [inaudible]
GOING FORWARD.
AND WHERE OR NOT AND WE'RE NOT
I'M NOTSUGGESTING AN AMENDMENT
TO THAT WE ARE ACCEPTING THAT
PROVISION IN THIS BILL.
RIGHT THE THE INDUSTRY HAS
PROBLEMS WITH IT IN THE INDUSTRY
IS SAYING DOWN THE ROAD.
THEY MAY HAVE TO ADJUST POLICIES
AND RATES.
I'M TO ACCOMMODATE THAT BUT WE
ARE NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGE TO
MR DODD'S PROPOSAL.
IN THAT REGARD.
THEN UP LET ME ADD AGAIN DATA
FIRST.
SOME POLICIES DON'T HAVE LIMITS
AS WAS DESCRIBED BUT THOSE
POLICIES PAY UNTIL THE HOME IS
HABITABLE AGAIN.
SO THAT WAS ALREADY KIND OF
INCLUDED IN THOSE POLICIES AS A
PROVISION THAT EXTENDS COVERAGE
IT DOES A GENEROUS EXTENSION.
BUT IT IS PART OF HOW THE
POLICIES.
WORK NOW WHETHER IT WAS TWO
YEARS OR THREE YEARS SO THIS
DOESN'T CHANGE THOSE POLICIES
[inaudible]
SECOND.
THE ANSWERS AREN'T PAYING FOR
ANYTHING THAT HASN'T.
BEEN PAID FOR BY THEIR POLICY
HOLDERS.
SO ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS
AREN'T SOMETHING THAT'S COMING
OUT OF THE IN SHORT BURSTS MONEY
IT'S COMING OUT OF PREMIUMS PAID
BY POLICY HOLDERS.
AND AS SENATOR DRAW SENATOR DODD
MADE CLEAR THERE'S A TRIPLE
TRIGGER TO WHEN ANYONE WOULD BE --
HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING THESE
BENEFITS RIGHT.
THESE BENEFITS ONLY COME WHEN
YOU HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH.
A CATASTROPHE.
YOU HAVE A TOTAL LOSS AND YOU'RE
UNDER INSURED.
THAT LIMITS HOW MUCH THE RATES
ARE GOING THERE EVEN NEED TO BE
ADJUSTED THIS IS A VERY LIMITED.
POOL OF POLICY HOLDERS WHO ARE
GONNA RECEIVE THIS BENEFIT BUT
THOSE WHO NEED THEM MOST.
I TELL YOU IS THE FORMER.
CHIEF OF OUR RATE REGULATION
BRANCH THE AFFECT ON PREMIUM
WOULD BE MINIMAL.
IT CERTAINLY CLARIFIES SO --
WHAT POLICY HOLDERS CAN EXPECT
THOUGH OF [inaudible]
MOVING FORWARD SHOULD THE BILL
PASSED AN BE SIGNED BY THE
GOVERNOR IT WILL GIVE IT WILL
CLARIFY.
THE SITUATION FOR POLICY HOLDERS.
FROM OTHER QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MISTER GRAYSON
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND I
APPRECIATE --
THE SENATOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND FOR YOUR PASSION AS
WELL AS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO
YOUR CONSTITUENTS.
AND ARE YOU FOR FILLING THAT
RESPONSE BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT
I'M IN A ROOM WITH A LOT OF
REALLY REALLY SMART PEOPLE WHEN
IT COMES TO INSURANCE.
AND BLESS ALL OF YOU --
IN MY IN MY VERY LIMITED
KNOWLEDGE --
AND EXPOSURE TO THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY AYE I'VE HEARD A
STATEMENT THAT.
THAT'S BOTHERSOME TO ME NOT FROM
SENATOR --
SO MUCH BUT IT IS BOTHERSOME TO
ME BECAUSE IT APPEARS LIKE FOLKS
THAT ARE REALLY REALLY SMART THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY --
WE SHOULD KNOW OR YOU DO KNOW
WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE
APPROACHING THIS FROM.
THE STATEMENT THAT A CONSUMER
GETS ON THEIR INSURANCE POLICY
WITH THAT ONE DOLLAR AMOUNT.
THAT SAYS HERE'S HOW MUCH YOU'RE
PAYING FOR ALL OF YOUR INSURANCE
AND THAT'S HOW YOU'RE
APPROACHING THIS BUT THAT'S NOT
HOW INDUSTRY RUNS.
INDUSTRY DOESN'T RUN BASED ON
THAT ONE FIGURE THAT'S PUBLISHED
TO THE THE CONSUMER INDUSTRY
RAIMES BASED ON THE DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES.
OF INSURANCE IT'S BEING PROVIDED
AS A PRODUCT AND THOSE
CATEGORIES ARE RATED DIFFERENTLY
SO WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE NOT ASKING
FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO
PAY MORE.
IN ESSENCE YOU KIND OF ARE
BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T RATED ALL
OF THOSE CATEGORIES AT THE SAME
RATE.
SO WHEN YOU'RE REQUIRING THEM TO
PUT OUT --
MONEY OUT OF ONE RATE AND YOU
SAY WELL IT'S DIRTY IT'S THREE
YEARS THEY'VE PAID UP THIS MUCH
MONEY THEY HAVE THIS MUCH
COVERAGE FOR THREE YEARS THEY
DIDN'T USE AT ALL SO LET'S TAKE
THE LEFTOVER INPUTTED INTO
ANOTHER PART.
WELL THEY DIDN'T RATE THAT IT
AND AND I'M MAYBE I AM TOTALLY.
IN A POSITION TO BE --
TO BE CORRECTED HERE.
SO -- IT AND
YOU CAN CORRECT ME HOWEVER IT'S
MY UNDERSTANDING IN YOU CAN
EDUCATE ME AND SCHOOL BUT TO
HEAR TO KINGDOM COME TODAY.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
WHEN THEY ARE DOING THAT RATES.
THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ON REALLY
PAYING FOR SOMEONE TO BE OFF
SITE OR PUT ASIDE FOR THREE
ENTIRE FOUR YEARS.
THEY'RE TAKING A RATE AND
THEY'RE RATING THAT AT HEY IT'S
OUR IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO GET
THESE PEOPLE BACK IN THEIR HOME
THAT WE REBUILT FOR THEM AS
QUICK AS POSSIBLE.
SO THIS IS A MODEL YOU'RE YOU'RE
YOU'RE PROTECTING THE CONSUMER
AND I THINK THAT'S PHENOMENAL I
THINK GETTING MONEY INTO THEIR
HANDS AND AN ACTOR MONEY IS
RIGHT.
THIS WHOLE UNDERSHIRT ISSUE
WE'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH.
BUT YOUR YOU'RE TAKING MONEY
FROM ONE CATEGORY THAT'S RATED
IN ONE WAY AND PAYING AND I'LL
IN ANOTHER WAY.
AND THAT'S MESSING WITH I THINK
THE MODEL [inaudible]
OF INSURANCE DOING BUSINESS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
NOW AM I NOT SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT
THE SENATORS I AM.
VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AT HERE'S
WHAT I'M ASKING.
FOR AND BY THE WAY THIS WHOLE
UNDER SHIRT INTO THE I'M A
LITTLE PREACHY MOTOR --
THIS WHOLE UNDER INSURED ISSUE
THAT WE HAVE ISN'T.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THE SENATORS
DOING THIS BUT GOING AFTER ONE
INDUSTRY TO TRY TO FIX THAT
PROBLEM ISN'T IS IS NOT THE
ANSWER NOR HAVE YOU EVER SAID IT
IS.
BUT IT'S IT'S WHEN YOU HAVE A
CRISIS OR AN EMERGENCY OR
TRAGEDY LIKE WE'VE HAD.
AND YOU HAVE CONTRACTORS.
THE TIMES THE AMOUNT OR YOU HAVE
PRODUCT THAT IS INCREASED
EXPONENTIALLY IN PRICE --
THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE DEALT
WITH AS WELL GOING BACK TO THIS
MY ASK TO THE SENATOR IS WOULD
YOU BE WILLING.
IF THIS BILL WAS TO GET OUT
TODAY TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
OPPOSITION.
TRY TO FIND SOME HAPPY MEDIUM.
MAYBE NOT SO HAPPY SOME MEDIUM --
WHERE AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID WITH
ANOTHER BILL TODAY WHERE
NOBODY'S HAPPY BUT WE GOT TO THE
RIGHT PLACE WHO WOULD YOU BE
ABLE TO BE --
COMMIT TO JUST CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THE INDUSTRY TO BE
ABLE TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO
ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WANT TO DO
AND THAT'S TO GET MONEY INTO THE
HANDS OF THE PEOPLE TO GET THEM
BACK TO THE STATE THEY WERE IN
BEFORE THE TRAGEDY.
AND AND DO THAT PRIOR TO
REACHING THE FLOOR.
I DID THE ANSWER THE QUESTION IS
YES PARTICULARLY --
I HAVEN'T BEEN SO THRILLED WITH
THE CONSULTANTS AMENDMENTS ON
THIS BIT HIS COULD THE THOSE
AMENDMENTS MAY PROVIDE FOR US.
A FORUM --
FOR NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS THAT.
WE YOU KNOW WE DID NOT HAVE
BEFORE SO --
SO THE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS
YES.
IN AS MR GRAYSON SAID --
THE INDUSTRY DOESN'T LIKE SOME
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL WHICH I
THINK ARE REASONABLE AND FAIR.
MR DOT DOESN'T LIKE SOME OF THE
PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS --
AND THAT IS --
THE BILL EMERGED --
UNCERTAIN FASHION FROM THE
SENATE.
AND ANOTHER BILL THAT HAD SOME
SIMILAR HAD TO ADDRESS THE SAME
ISSUES.
A COMPLETELY FAILED.
IN THE SENATE AND THE VERY
CHALLENGING.
OF ARRAY OF ISSUES HERE BUT I
THINK THIS IS THE BEST WE'RE
GONNA DO.
AS OF TODAY.
AND CERTAINLY I ENCOURAGE
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS TO TRY.
TO TRIED TO GO SOME.
MAKE MORE FOLKS HAPPY WITH THE
OUTCOME [inaudible]
BUT US --
MISTER FRAZIER HAS QUESTION.
SO IT'S KIND OF A TWOFOLD
QUESTION I THINK OF SOME OF THE
THINGS WE HAVEN'T ACKNOWLEDGED
TODAY IS.
THAT ONE A ONE OF A HOMEOWNER IS
VICTIMIZED BY A NATURAL DISASTER.
AND OTHER DISPLACED.
NOBODY IS AN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
THEY SOUGHT TO PAY THEIR
MORTGAGE.
THERE MORTGAGE DOES NOT GO AWAY.
AND SO THERE DISPLACED.
AND THEY'RE HAVING TO PAY FOR
SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE.
AND I THINK THAT WHAT.
DOES INSURANCE CENTRICITY OR IS
IT THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY THAT
CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
MORTGAGE INSURANCE.
THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY BUILDING
OKAY.
AND THE OTHER THING IS IS WHAT I
LOOK AT INDUSTRY WE LOOK AT PROP
ONE OF THREE WE LOOK AT WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE DOES.
AS FAR AS MANDATES.
BUT PAIN FROM MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THE THE COMMISSION.
OR THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
CAN ACTUALLY NOT.
PROVE A RATE INCREASE.
OF DO TO A MANDATE.
ABSOLUTELY I MEAN THAT'S A
REALLY BIG CONCERN FOR US
ASSEMBLY MEMBER --
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW AND WE DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE PRICE
ADEQUATE.
ON EARTH ADEQUATE PREMIUMS ON IN
GENERAL SO TO PUT MORE PRESSURE.
ON THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO PAY
OUT MORE WITHOUT BEING ABLE --
TO COLLECT ADEQUATE PREMIUMS AS
A BIG ISSUE AND THAT'S AGAIN WHY --
THE CONCERN IS THAT THERE MAY
NOT BE THE ABILITY TO OFFER THE
SAME KIND OF PRODUCTS.
GENEROUS PRODUCTS THAT WE OFFER
TODAY.
I HAVE TWO A DISPUTE THAT I I'M
NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT
THE YOUR YOUR PREMIUMS IN THE
DEPARTMENT APPROVES A PREMIUM
LEVEL.
THAT WOULD ALLOW AN INSURER TO
PAY ALL OF ITS COVERED LOSSES.
THAT'S HOW RATE THE RATE PROCESS
WORKS.
SO IF INSURERS LOSSES FROM.
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN WERE
GREATER THAN THEY PREDICTED THE
LOSSES FOR TWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN WOULD BE AND THEY
THINK THEY'RE GONNA HAVE SIMILAR
LOSSES IN.
TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN OR THEY'VE
AMENDED THEIR COVERAGE IN
RESPONSE TO LEGISLATION TO GIVE
BROADER COVERAGE THEY WOULD
FILED NEW RATES.
SO TO ABSORB WHATEVER ADDITIONAL
LOSSES THEY WOULD EXPECT TO
INCUR IN THE FUTURE.
OKAY AND THANK YOU SO MISTER
FRAZIER DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
BECAUSE YOU NEED YOU KNOW RECORD
QUESTIONS TO THE INDUSTRY ARE
RATTLING INDUSTRY THANK THANK
YOU -- THANK
YOU AND I WILL SAY THAT.
AS MANDATED BY OR OVERSEEN BY
[inaudible]
DEPARTMENT INSURANCE.
I THINK THAT WE TO GET HEAVY
HANDED WITHOUT THE ABILITY FOR
FOR ENTITY.
FOR A COMPANY OR BUSINESS TO BE
ABLE. TO TO OVERCOME IN AND
SPREAD TO SPREAD THE PAIN.
IN OTHER WORDS --
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS.
IS THERE A RECOVERABLE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THAT CAN BE MADE.
WITH AN EXPECTATION THAT.
THEY CAN CONTINUE TO THRIVE IN
THIS INDUSTRY.
IF IF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE DECIDED NO YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO RECOVER.
OR NOT AND IT'S HAPPENED MATTER
FACT.
THEY'VE BEEN REDUCED.
AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE
VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE START
LOOKING AT MANDATES --
ON AN INDUSTRY THAT HAD.
COULD BE HEART OF THROUGH
ANOTHER ENTITY.
DE M. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS
SIR MR GIPSON [inaudible]
SO.
THAT THING THAT THE CONVERSATION
IN THE BACK OF AND MEN'S THAT
WAS SUCH THAT WAS THAT'S BEFORE
US AS A COMMITTEE --
AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
SENATOR DODD IS GOING TO WORK
WITH INDUSTRY TO AGAIN TO GET TO
A HAPPY MEDIUM SO THAT'S MY MOST.
IS THERE IT IS THERE A SECOND TO
THE MOTION.
THANK YOU OF COMMITTEE STAFF
WOULD LIKE TO JUST COULD BE
CLEAR THE MOTION BY MISTER ANY
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ARE
REFLECTED ON THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AS EMBODIED IN --
THE MOCKUP THAT'S BEEN
DISTRIBUTED TO THE MEMBERS THAT
IS CORRECT AND THAT YOU
ARTICULATED EARLIER FOR THE BODY.
ARE THE QUESTIONS MISTER BIGELOW
[inaudible]
MANY.
WHAT THINK YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S
THE BILL WITH WHAT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS?
TO BILL WHAT THE COMMITTEES.
TO THE MOTION IS TO ADOPT.
THE COMMITTEE SET OF MENDMENTS
INTO THE BILL [inaudible]
STEP [inaudible]
ONE THERE'S THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION THAT'S A GOOD
CLARIFICATION.
ARE WE CLEAR.
WE'RE INCORPORATING THE
AMENDMENTS INTO THE BILL
[inaudible]
THIS MOTION.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS PEOPLE
DOING ANY QUESTIONS [inaudible]
MR DOT.
YEAH WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE
SEVEN MEMBER I'D APPRECIATE IS --
TRYING TO MOVE THIS UP THE ALL
ALONG IN A GET UP.
A POSITIVE RESPONSE THE REALITY
IS IT'S YOUR VOTE.
YOU PASS THESE AMENDMENTS
AUTOMATICALLY.
THERE IS NO.
INCENTIVE FOR THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES TO NEGOTIATE ANYTHING.
LET ME BE CLEAR FROM DAY ONE I
HAD BUT FRANKLY IN IN LOOKING
BACK I'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT.
INSURANCE AS WELL IN FROM DAY
ONE IN THE SENATE I BELIEVE WE
WERE DOING --
YELP.
PROBABLY OVER WE DON'T.
DOING THINGS THAT WOULD REALLY
CREATE RATE PRESSURES RATE
TENSIONS WHICH WOULD IMPACT
EVERYBODY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA NOT JUST THE VICTIMS.
IT'S I WANT I WANT TO CLARIFY
THAT -- THAT
I I REALLY DON'T THINK THESE
AMENDMENTS EARLY OUT ALL THE
AMEND ITS EXCEPT FOR ONE OH
THREE ONE A ONE POINT.
OH THREE POINT SEVEN OR LET'S
SAY SECTION.
THREE I'M OKAY WITH THAT THAT
SECTION THERE'S YOU GIVE THAT TO
THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
THEY GOT NO REASON A NEGOTIATE
WITH ME THEY JUST.
ONE YEAH I KNOW THAT THEY JUST
WON THE WAR AND ESSENTIALLY WHEN
PEOPLE SAY I'D APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU DO IT FOR YOUR DISTRICT.
YEAH MY DISTRICT IS DONE THIS
BILL DOES NOTHING. FOR ANYBODY
IN MY DISTRICT IT'S ALL OF OUR
DISTRICTS MOVING FORWARD THAT
YELLED THAT THAT THAT I'M REALLY
LOOKING OUT.
FOR AND AGAIN.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE OF
THAT IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP
RELATIVE --
TO ES EL WE NOTHING ELSE AND IT
WHICH YOUR CONSULTANT IN YOUR
CHAIRMAN.
APPARENTLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH.
THEY THE ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE US
TODAY IS JUST COMBINING OF
COVERAGES IT SEEMS TO ME.
AYE ELISE FROM THE STEPS STEPS
THEY ARE POOR COMMITTEE
STANDPOINT.
AND IN THAT REGARD.
I AM NOT ASKING THIS BILL DOES
NOT ASK THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
TO PAY ANYTHING MORE THAN
ESTABLISH LOSSES INSTEAD OF
PAYING FOR A REFRIGERATOR AND
HAVE TO GO OUT AND BUY A
REFRIGERATOR THESE PEOPLE WANT.
TO REBUILD THEIR HOMES SO WITH
THAT MISTER CHAIR [inaudible]
NO.
ALRIGHT OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS --
I MEAN WE'RE UP AGAINST A
DEADLINE [inaudible]
AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS SO YOUR
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
INSURANCE NDUSTRY ARE.
ARE EITHER GOING TO OCCUR OR
THEY'RE NOT --
AN IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT.
THAT THAT THESE AMENDMENTS
SOMEHOW RESTRICT THAT.
TOM.
I DON'T.
NO THE THAT'S I'M NOT SURE I
SHARE THAT OPINION.
SOME OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
THERE'S A MOTION IT MISTER
BIGELOW.
THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND TO
INCORPORATE THE AMENDMENTS INTO
THE BILL --
MISTER FRAZIER.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND SO.
I WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR MY
PREVIOUS LIFE.
AND I'D BUILT HOMES IN THE OPEN
FIRE STORM.
OKAY AND THERE WERE THINGS THAT
WERE.
TAKEN FROM THAT AND MADE BETTER
[inaudible]
OKAY.
BUT IT WAS A COLLABORATION OF
STAKEHOLDERS.
AND THAT'S HOW THINGS GOT BETTER --
I'M HEARING.
THAT.
THERE'S A THERE'S A THE LOGGER
HEADS OF INDUSTRY VERSES.
YOU KNOW.
THE AUTHOR.
AGAIN LIKE CANNABIS JACKSON'S.
THE CENTERS BILL EARLIER HOW MY
EXPECTATION IS THAT THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY EVEN THOSE
AMENDMENTS WERE TAKING THIS
COMMITTEE TODAY.
THAT THERE CAN BE OF FURTHER
NEGOTIATION.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN.
A COMMITTEE THAT'S NOT HAD SOME
KIND OF THEM IN INPUT AFTER
ANOTHER COMMITTEE --
I'VE HAD BILLS IT COMPLETELY
LOOK DIFFERENT FROM THE TIME
I'VE CROSSED OVER THE DESK SO
THIS IS JUST THIS COMMITTEE
[inaudible]
RIGHT -- BUT
MY EXPECTATION IS AS I SAID WITH --
JACKSON.
IS THAT THE OF THE CONTINUUM OF
NEGOTIATIONS.
I THINK IT FELL.
I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING TO
YESTERDAY.
I'M ON THIS COMMITTEE.
OKAY AND SO I THINK THAT MY
EXPECTATION IS GETTING A ROOM TO
BRING A SLEEPING BAG OF PILLS.
YOU DON'T COME OUT OF THAT ROOM
UNTIL IT SOME KIND OF
COMPROMISES MADE.
RIGHT THAT'S MY EXPECTATION
BECAUSE I'M GONNA HAVE ANOTHER
WHACK AT THIS AND I WILL GO UP
ON THE FLOOR.
IT THERE WAS NO GOOD WILL
AFFORDED LET'S MOVE FORWARD --
THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND
LET'S SEVERAL CALLED MOTION.
SIR.
BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD HERE
TODAY CAN BE PRAGMATIC I'M
WONDERING IF THE CHAIR WOULD
ALLOW.
OF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION TO A
WITHDRAW HIS MOTION.
AND ALLOW --
THIS BILL TO GO FORWARD AS WITH
THE AMENDMENTS.
EXCEPT THE AMENDMENTS FROM THAT
THE CHAIRMAN --
THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED --
THIS MORNING BY THE STAFF IN YOU.
SO I DO ACCEPT THE MAGNETS
BECAUSE OF WHAT I'M HEARING IS
THE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO BE
ACCEPTED RIGHT I DON'T KNOW
WHAT'S GOING HAVE TO YOU BILL SO
YOU'D RATHER THAN MY VOTE ON
MISTER GIBSON'S MOTION YOU'LL
ACCEPT ALL THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS.
SO WE JUST HAVE ONE VOTE ON THE
BILL WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN EXCEPT.
WE'LL NEED A MOTION THEN --
TO THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND
[inaudible]
LET'S SEVERAL [inaudible]
THE BILL [inaudible]
RIGHT [inaudible]
GOOD.
RIGHT THERE'S A MOTION AND
SECOND ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
DAILY AYE DALY AYE MAYES
[inaudible]
BIGELOW [inaudible]
CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE.
CALDERON.
CHEN [inaudible]
CHIU.
COOLEY.
COOLEY AYE COOPER.
COOPER AYE FRAZIER.
FRAZIER AYE GIPSON.
THEN I GRAYSON [inaudible]
HARPER [inaudible]
BUT SIX VOTES THE ROLE WILL STAY
OPEN UNTIL THE OTHER COMMITTEES
OF A MEMBERS COME BACK MR DOT
OUTSTANDING.
EFFORTS IDEA IS PLEASE KEEP
TALKIN A NEAT TO THE INDUSTRY AS
WE'VE ALL DISCUSSED [inaudible]
AND THANK YOU GET ON THAT I
APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH I HOPE
THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL COME
TO THE TABLE CAN THANK YOU SO
MUCH PERSON [inaudible]
HER HEIGHT --
THAT FINISHES THE THE BILLS
BEFORE US WILL LEAVE THOUGH OPEN
FOR ADD ONS.
HAVE YOU YEAH.
TRACY IF YOU COULD --
READ DOWN THE LIST OF BILLS WILL
pWILL DO THAT RIGHT NOW AND THEN
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN
[inaudible]
NO.
THANKS MICHAEL A PROBLEM
NEGOTIATE WITH.
NOT ONLY BECAUSE OKAY.
BUT THAT S. B. NINE SEVENTEEN
DALY AYE DALY AYE [inaudible]
BIGELOW. NINE ONE SEVEN SAID.
JACKSON [inaudible]
BIGELOW NO.
COOLEY AYE AYE COOLEY AYE
PREACHER.
GUNS ARE COOPER [inaudible]
WHO?
YOUR VOTE O. [inaudible]
FRAZIER [inaudible]
FRAZIER AYE.
BUT HARPER KNOWS [inaudible]
HARPER NO [inaudible] EIGHT
THREE ALRIGHT.
NOW ANY OTHER OUT ON STRAIGHT
SEE.
MUCH OF THE TEXT [inaudible]
I'M LISTENING. NINE EIGHT S. B..
EIGHT EIGHT AT CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE CALDERON.
GIPSON AYE GIPSON AYE HARPER AYE
HARPER AYE [inaudible]
WELL DESERVE [inaudible]
AND HE I S. B..
EIGHT NINETY FOUR THERE WAS HERE.
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE.
I'M CABALLERO ON SB.
EIGHT NINE NINE COME ERA AYE
CALDERON [inaudible]
UBER.
I'D COOPER I GRAYSON.
GRAYSON AYE HARPER.
HARPER AYE THAT HAS [inaudible]
TWELVE TO ZERO EVEN [inaudible]
SO YOU THAT EIGHT NINE GLORIA
TRACE.
THAT WAS.
THEN THE WHAT WE JUST DID WHAT
YEAH BUT I DON'T KNOW.
HOW I'M SORRY?
BUT I HAD KIDS NOT LOANS.
I DO HOW OKAY --
DOT ORG.
WHO WAS LOOKING FOR TRAFFIC?
THEY WERE OUT THERE BEFORE I HAD.
TO THAT WHICH SAYS NO
[inaudible]
ONCE I I NEED THAT ON YOUR BILL.
RUN THROUGH AGAIN QUICK JUST
JUST CALLED [inaudible]
CALDERON HON.
S. B. [inaudible]
EIGHT NINETY FOUR BY
[inaudible]
CALDERON AYE
THE SEVEN ZERO SEVEN ONE ACTIONS
AND ONE GOT YOU GOT A CALL.
OKAY DIDN'T MAYES [inaudible]
I'VE CHEN [inaudible]
CHIU [inaudible]
GRAYSON.
GRAYSON AYE HARPER NO
[inaudible]
HARPER NO [inaudible] EIGHT TO
RIGHT TO THE OTHER.
BUT WE CAN'T JUST CALL YOU.
HEARD ABOUT IT.
I EIGHT PASS ME EIGHT EIGHTY
CALDERON.
CALDERON AYE.
THIRTEEN ZERO S. B. EIGHT NINETY
NINE CALDERON.
CALDERON AYE [inaudible]
THIRTEEN TO ZERO ENERGY HAVE
[inaudible]
THAT THEY THAT'S RIGHT.
EIGHT NINETY I DON'T KNOW A
WHOLE HOST BOOK.
SO.
THAT'S OKAY [inaudible]
THEY DIDN.
THANK YOU FOR BEING A GALLON
RESPOND.
BOTTOM TICKET THING IN
[inaudible]
SELECT.
PARTICULARLY FOR JUSTICE
ALTERNATING.
YEAH FRIENDS FRIENDS OF OUR
HEARINGS A METALLIC [inaudible]
NCREDIBLE.
THANK YOU GOVERNOR.
CHOOSE TO COME IT WAS AND I
THOUGHT WE HAD EVERYBODY SHOULD.
WOULDN'T IT IS HEALING
[inaudible]
SOARING ANDALITE.
HOPE ALL TEXT IS THAT THEY WERE
STILL OPEN.
BILL OPEN.
FOR WE'RE WAITING FOR MR CHU.
AND MR MAYES.
SO WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN.
THANK YOU MISTER.
JUST LEAVE THE ROLE [inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible]
ANY [inaudible]
YEAH YEAH [inaudible]
DESIGNED [inaudible]
OKAY.
DID YOU GET ANYBODY BUT BUT THIS
IS A YEAH.
JUN REALLY.
REALLY.
REACHING [inaudible]
PORTANTINO [inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
SENATE [inaudible]
WILK.
BUT IN THE END.
WELL HE KNOWS [inaudible]
BUSINESSMAN DOT [inaudible]
YEAH
[inaudible]
I'VE