Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Services Motor Club topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears cleanup bill to modernize motor-club licensing and disclosure rules
Summary
AB 498 would update Nevada motor-club statute to remove an outdated requirement that clubs list a "usual place of business" in the state on membership cards and to allow nonresidents to be licensed as club agents when their home state does not license agents; supporters said the changes modernize statutes and reduce confusion for consumers.
Assemblymember Max Carter presented Assembly Bill 498 to amend Nevada's motor-club statutes. Carter and industry counsel said the bill makes limited, technical changes: removing the long-standing requirement that a motor club list a "usual place of business" in Nevada on membership cards and clarifying that a nonresident may be licensed as a motor-club agent in Nevada even if the individual's home state no longer issues comparable licenses. The bill also updates statutory terminology ("person" to "individual") for consistency and removes an obsolete fee requirement tied to registering a fictitious firm name.
Deborah Pollan, general counsel for the National Auto and Travel Organization (NATO), described motor-club services (towing, emergency roadside assistance) and said many services are provided under manufacturers' or insurers' programs rather than from brick-and-mortar club offices. Matt Morris, counsel with Holland & Hart, walked the committee through the specific NRS sections proposed for amendment and explained that several jurisdictions have repealed agent-licensing requirements, so the statutory text should permit a nonresident to apply in Nevada regardless of the rules in the home state.
Industry witnesses, including Snap Towing and the Nevada Registered Agent Association, testified in support and said the bill reduces consumer confusion over registered-agent addresses and improves consumer contact information where clubs do not maintain a separate in-state office. The Division of Insurance issued a notice on NELIS indicating the bill would not harm Nevada consumers, according to one supporter.
No opposition testimony was recorded and the committee did not take a vote at the hearing. Supporters asked that the committee advance the measure as a technical cleanup to modernize statute language last amended decades ago.
