Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND LABOR

Date:01/25/2006
ATTENDANCE
Time:11:28 AM to 12:56 PM
Balmer
X
Borodkin
X
Place:HCR 0107
Butcher
X
Carroll M.
*
This Meeting was called to order by
Coleman
*
Representative Marshall
Knoedler
X
Liston
X
This Report was prepared by
McCluskey
X
Christie Lee
Paccione
X
Penry
*
Welker
X
Cerbo
X
Marshall
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
HB06-1144
HB06-1120
HB06-1006		Laid Over
Referred to Finance
Amended, Referred to Appropriations


11:29 AM -- House Bill 06-1144

Representative May, prime sponsor, asked that House Bill 06-1144 be laid over so both sides can work on some compromise amendments. Representative Marshall explained to Representative May that the deadline to hear his bill in committee is February 9 and took House Bill 06-1144 off the table.

11:30 AM -- House Bill 06-1120

Representative Buescher, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 06-1120. He stated that in May 2005, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Granholm v. Heald and several other consolidated cases, that found laws similar to Colorado's, that allow in-state wineries to sell wine directly to in-state consumers but prohibit out-of-state wineries from doing so, violate the Interstate Commerce Clause. Representative Buescher stated that House Bill 1120 would bring Colorado statute into compliance with the Granholm decision by allowing the shipping from in-state and out-of-state wineries to Colorado consumers under certain conditions: wineries must obtain a Winer Direct Shipper's Permit, and shipments may only be made to consumers allowed to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages. Representative Buescher responded to questions from the committee about the permits and whether they exist currently.

11:34 AM -- Doug Caskey, Executive Director of the Colorado Wine Industry Development Board, testified in support of the bill. He explained the difficulties in shipping wine to Colorado consumers from Colorado wineries and how the bill will help clarify the requirements to do so.



11:36 AM -- Mark Barron, representing the Medovina, a Colorado limited winery from the front range, testified in favor of the bill. He stated that it is necessary for Colorado to respond to the court ruling. He stated that the language in House Bill 1120 will facilitate interstate shipping laws, and stated he feels the bill is fair and equitable.

11:40 AM -- Micki Hackenberger, representing the Wine and Spirit Wholesalers, reiterated the support of the bill. She stated the bill is necessary due to the Granholm case. She stated that the case pointed out that Colorado law was discriminatory to Colorado wineries. Ms. Hackenherger noted that the bill: takes steps to protect the existing 3-tier system, is narrow in scope and only applies to wine, is not discriminatory, only deals with shipping to a personal consumer, and prohibits the sale of wine on the internet. Ms. Hackenberger stated that if the bill does not pass, a lawsuit could be filed against and lost by the state.

11:44 AM -- Matt Cook, Director of the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division, Colorado Department of Revenue, in response to a question from the committee, stated that the bill only speaks to the manufacturer tier mentioned in the Granholm decision. Mr. Cook was asked to explain the $50 fee and where it came from. He responded that currently there is a license fee to cover the administrative costs, but now they must afford the same cost to the Colorado wineries and charge the fee in order to treat in and out-of-state wineries the same. Mr. Cook mentioned that the fee is an annual fee.
BILL:HB06-1120
TIME: 11:46:38 AM
MOVED:Paccione
MOTION:Refer House Bill 06-1120 to the Committee on Finance. Motion passed 13-0.
SECONDED:Borodkin
VOTE
Balmer
Yes
Borodkin
Yes
Butcher
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Coleman
Yes
Knoedler
Yes
Liston
Yes
McCluskey
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Penry
Yes
Welker
Yes
Cerbo
Yes
Marshall
Yes
Final YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS




11:47 AM -- House Bill 06-1006

Representative Butcher, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 1006. She explained that the bill would not allow an insurance carrier to tell a consumer to use a certain company to get his/her property repaired. However, Representative Butcher stated that the bill does not prohibit the insurance company from giving the consumer a list of recommended companies to use. She stated that the bill gives the consumer the right to select the contractor he/she would like to use to fix his/her property.

11:51 AM -- Joe Arrigo, representing Arrigo Restoration, testified in support of the bill. He explained that insurance companies sometimes steer consumers to use certain companies for personal property repair. He stated that he believed the bill needs to pass for two reasons: the bill's impact on consumers, and the bill's impact on small businesses. Mr. Arrigo responded to a question from the committee about how the money changes hands between the insurance company, the consumer, and the contractor.

12:05 PM -- Larry Trujillo, representing Trujillo Steam Clean in Pueblo Colorado and the Professional Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners Association, testified on how the bill will effect his business and the association. He explained that the contractors, who have put in a considerable amount of time learning the science of their profession, are now being told by certain adjusters how to do their job and how much they should charge the consumer. Mr. Trujillo stated that another problem contractors run into is that they are being called off jobs after they have already responded to a call from a consumer because the consumers insurance company has told them to use someone else. He stated that those problems have caused his company to lose money and have forced him to lay off employees.

12:09 PM -- Donna Miller from Grand Junction, sole proprietor and owner of Clean as a Whistle Carpet Care West, testified in support of the bill. She explained that her company is greatly effected by the insurance companies making consumers only use certain companies. She stated that her company has the same problem that Mr. Trujillo stated earlier: her company prepares to go to the house, but then gets called back because the insurance company told the consumer that they may not pay her company to do the work and that the consumer should use another company of the insurance company's choosing.

12:13 PM -- Gary Gilman from Vail, representing Steam Master Carpet Cleaning and Restoration, testified in support of the bill. He stated that it mirrors the law that is already is in place related to auto repairs, and that homeowners should have the same right to select the contractor they like and maybe have even used before, rather than being steered to a contractor by the insurance company.

12:16 PM -- Chuck Miller, owner of Miller Specialties, a carpet cleaning and water damage restoration company in Delta Colorado, spoke in support of the bill and discussed the issues that exist when a business is not listed as a preferred carrier with an insurance company.

12:19 PM -- Robert Johnson expressed his personal account of the struggle he and 18 other families went through with their insurance company when they were displaced due to a fire in their building.

12:22 PM -- Lee Spampinato, representing the Insurance Contractors and Associates Inc., testified in support of the bill. He stated he feels the insurance companies are involved in contractual relationships that they should not be involved in, they manipulate the market place, and limit free competition. Mr. Spampinato responded to questions from the committee about why the market does not fix these problems on its own and why consumers cannot just pick another insurance company they are happy with.


12:29 PM -- Justin Blackburn, representing Disaster Restoration Inc., testified in support of the bill. He explained that there are certain laws that contractors are supposed to follow after disasters, such as asbestos testing after a fire, that cost money that insurance companies do not want to pay. He stated that there have been occasions where the insurance company has told him that they will not pay for the asbestos testing and that they will find a contractor who will do the work without the asbestos test. Mr. Blackburn responded to the committee's previous question about why the market does not fix the problem itself. There was some discussion on absolute pricing.

12:39 PM -- KC Savage, representing KC Savage Interior Design, testified as a consumer and as a business owner in favor of the bill. She gave her personal experience of restoring her home after a lightning strike and how she found a contractor that did exactly what she wanted. She expressed concern when consumers are forced to go to preferred vendors from the insurance company with unsatisfactory results.
BILL:HB06-1006
TIME: 12:45:41 PM
MOVED:Butcher
MOTION:Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment A). There was some discussion about whether the language in the amendment that removes the three day rule for notice to a claimant that they may freely choose any repair business should be relocated to another part of the bill. The amendment was adopted without objection.
SECONDED:Marshall
VOTE
Balmer
Borodkin
Butcher
Carroll M.
Coleman
Knoedler
Liston
McCluskey
Paccione
Penry
Welker
Cerbo
Marshall
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

BILL:HB06-1006
TIME: 12:54:12 PM
MOVED:Butcher
MOTION:Refer House Bill 06-1006, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Motion passed 13-0.
SECONDED:Coleman
VOTE
Balmer
Yes
Borodkin
Yes
Butcher
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Coleman
Yes
Knoedler
Yes
Liston
Yes
McCluskey
Yes
Paccione
Yes
Penry
Yes
Welker
Yes
Cerbo
Yes
Marshall
Yes
Final YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS
12:56 PM

The committee adjourned.