Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee defers bill that would ban door-to-door disaster solicitations amid concerns about emergency repairs
Summary
Rep. Glorioso’s bill to bar unsolicited contracting after disasters drew extensive debate over scope, emergency tarping exceptions and enforcement; committee adopted narrowing amendments and deferred HB 924 for one week to craft further protections for small local contractors.
Representative Glorioso introduced House Bill 924 to ban unsolicited, door‑to‑door solicitation of residential property owners during a governor‑declared disaster response period, arguing the measure targets “storm‑chasing” contractors who prey on vulnerable homeowners. He told the committee the proposal is narrowly tailored to protect consumers and protect local contractors who are in the community before and after storms.
The committee accepted a substantial amendment set (16‑62) that narrowed the language, adjusted definitions and moved several provisions into clearer form. Representative Glorioso said the bill allows limited emergency mitigation—tarps and temporary repairs—while preventing high‑pressure sales and misrepresentations; he repeatedly cited concerns about elderly or otherwise vulnerable homeowners being pressured into poorly itemized contracts. Contractors and industry witnesses testified at length. Brad Hassard of the Board of Contractors said enforcement would rely heavily on consumer complaints and acknowledged the board’s limited staff capacity. Opponents including Jonathan Davis of the Residential Roofing Association warned the measure could bar legitimate local contractors who rely on direct outreach to find work, and asked for clearer carve‑outs for emergency mitigation and small businesses.
Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple told the committee he supports the intent and said the bill would help identify bad actors that inflate claims and raise premiums. Committee members pressed the author about the bill’s geographic and temporal scope—the original six‑month “catastrophe response” period drew repeated criticism as too long—and an amendment from Representative Hilferty shortened the period to 30 days. After extended questioning and public testimony, Representative Newell moved to defer HB 924 for one week so the author and industry can narrow language further; the motion carried. The committee left the bill pending additional drafting on enforcement, emergency‑repair exceptions and the proposed remedies for consumers who sign illegal contracts.
