Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee amends solicitation ban for disaster victims, gives localities flexibility
Summary
House Bill 1348 was amended in committee to remove a 48-hour blanket bar on solicitation of disaster victims, redefine "disaster" to require emergency-response involvement, classify certain mitigation services as home improvements, and give local jurisdictions authority over in-person solicitation limits and a five-day rescission for homeowners.
The Economic Matters Committee amended and advanced House Bill 1348 on Tuesday, altering an original draft that would have broadly prohibited contractors from soliciting disaster victims. Sponsors said they removed a strict 48-hour ban and narrowed the bill's scope to events that require emergency-response services, and they granted local governments authority to set in-person solicitation limits.
Under the amendments explained during committee, the bill's definition of "disaster" was revised to require a serious event that causes harm to a home, building or other structure and that requires emergency-response services such as EMS or fire response. The measure also reclassifies certain "disaster-mitigating services" as home improvements and grants homeowners a five-day right of rescission for contracts entered under those circumstances.
A committee speaker summarized the package: the bill "removes the 48 hours requirement that was originally in the bill. It defines disaster to mean a serious event that causes harm to a home building or other structure and requires emergency response services. ... It provides the homeowners a 5 day right of rescission, and it allows the locals to determine the limitations placed on any in person solicitations." The sponsor said the narrower definition was intended to avoid covering routine incidents such as minor basement flooding or small kitchen fires.
Members also discussed logistics and received multiple sets of amendments during committee. The amended motion to move the bill favorably carried; the transcript shows members voting and recorded a favorable motion. The committee did not specify penalty structures for violations in the discussion recorded in the transcript.
Committee members asked for a reprint of the amended bill before any floor vote; one member explicitly requested additional time to review the reprint. The sponsor and staff agreed to delay any floor action until members had a chance to review the new language.
The bill as amended places new disclosure and consumer-protection elements on certain post-disaster home improvement solicitations while giving counties and municipalities latitude to set local limits and enforcement parameters.
