Committee weighs AB231 to tighten home-warranty response times, require hotel stays when AC not restored

Assemblymember Linda Hunt presented Assembly Bill 231 to the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee as a measure to require home-warranty service contracts to specify provider duties and timeline expectations. "This bill is only meant to address home warranty service contracts," Assemblymember Linda Hunt said when introducing the measure.

Taylor Altman, a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, walked the committee through a conceptual amendment that would require repairs covered under a service contract to be completed within defined timeframes and make certain failures actionable under Nevada’s deceptive trade-practice law. "Subsection (1)(g) sets out the duties of a provider of a home warranty service contract," Altman said. The conceptual amendment cited in committee would require general repairs within 14 business days after notice, create a 3-calendar-day repair deadline specifically for air conditioners, and require providers to offer hotel accommodations at no cost to the contract holder until air conditioning is restored when that 3-day deadline is missed.

Supporters described consumer harm during extreme heat and urged stronger timelines. Testimony played an evening news segment showing a family in Las Vegas who waited weeks for AC repairs; the segment quoted Commissioner Scott Kipper of the Nevada Division of Insurance explaining that current administrative code requires providers to notify the consumer and the division if repairs cannot be completed in three calendar days. "They have 3 days to notify the consumer. They have 3 days in which to reach out to a contractor to initiate the work," Commissioner Scott Kipper was shown saying in the video.

The conceptual amendment added multiple consumer protections including prohibitions on requiring holders to move appliances before service, a ban on canceling service calls for failure to pull out an appliance, a fraud provision for charging holders for canceled service calls, advance written notice (30 days) of coverage changes prior to renewal, and civil penalties enforceable by the Commissioner of Insurance and consumer remedies under state consumer-protection statutes.

Contractors and industry groups opposed or asked for changes, citing parts and supply-chain delays and technician availability. "There's no limitation on cost. There's no limitation on what hotel they want to stay at at, Caesars Palace or ... where do they want how long can they stay there?" said Jordan Krainbuehl, executive director of the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors of Nevada. Industry witnesses asked the committee to consider alternatives such as providing portable units while parts are obtained and urged allowances for parts availability and delivery timelines.

The Nevada Division of Insurance testified neutral and provided data showing 8,539 initial reports in calendar year 2024 under NAC provisions tied to essential items. Division staff said AB231 would grant the agency additional authority to enforce timelines for paired emergency items such as air conditioning units but cautioned that some service-contract providers could reevaluate market participation if compliance becomes impractical due to parts availability or technician shortages.

Committee members raised questions about scope, including whether the bill should explicitly include heating and hot-water systems, how the homeowner/landlord/tenant interaction would work when a landlord holds the contract for rental properties, and how to define reasonable hotel accommodations. Sponsors and stakeholders said they were open to drafting language refined in follow-up meetings.

Why it matters: Supporters framed the bill as a public-safety and consumer-protection measure for Nevada’s extreme heat, citing cases where seniors or medically vulnerable residents lacked functioning air conditioning for extended periods. Opponents warned potential unintended consequences for contractor participation, higher costs for consumers, and practical issues with parts availability.

What’s next: The hearing included extensive testimony and a proposed conceptual amendment; no committee vote was recorded during the hearing. The sponsor said she will continue stakeholder discussions.