California Bill AB293

Originally Posted By: bmalouf
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



BILL NUMBER: AB 293 AMENDED


BILL TEXT


AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2005
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 20, 2005
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 17, 2005

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Maze

FEBRUARY 9, 2005

An act to amend Section 7197 of, and to add Section 7197.5 to, the
Business and Professions Code, relating to home inspections.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 293, as amended, Maze. Home inspections.
Existing law regulates persons who perform home inspections for a
fee in connection with a property transfer, as defined. Existing law
defines terms related to home inspections, establishes a standard of
care for home inspectors, and prohibits certain inspections in which
an inspector or the inspector's employer has a financial interest.
This bill would provide that a home inspector may name a seller,
real estate broker, or a real estate salesperson as an additional
insured in a liability insurance policy.
The
This bill would require a home inspector or a company
that employs home inspectors to provide a specified written
disclosure to the party on whose behalf the inspection is being
performed.
The
This bill would make it an unfair business practice for
a home inspector or a company that employs home inspectors to fail
to make those disclosures or to disclose personal identifying
information of a person involved in an inspection.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 7197 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
7197.
(a) It is an unfair business practice for a home inspector, a
company that employs the inspector, or a company that is controlled
by a company that also has a financial interest in a company
employing a home inspector, to do any of the following:
(1) To perform or offer to perform, for an additional fee, any
repairs to a structure on which the inspector, or the inspector's
company, has prepared a home inspection report in the past 12 months.

(2) Inspect for a fee any property in which the inspector, or the
inspector's company, has any financial interest or any interest in
the transfer of the property.
(3) To offer or deliver any compensation, inducement, or reward to
the owner of the inspected property, the broker, or agent, for the
referral of any business to the inspector or the inspection company.

(4) Accept an engagement to make an inspection or to prepare a
report in which the employment itself or the fee payable for the
inspection is contingent upon the conclusions in the report,
preestablished findings, or the close of escrow.
(5) A home protection company that is affiliated with or that
retains the home inspector does not violate this section if it
performs repairs pursuant to claims made under the home protection
contract.
(6) To fail to disclose or misrepresent any item required to be
disclosed in Section 7197.5.
(7) To disclose personal identifying information, including, but
not limited to, the name, address, telephone number, state or federal
driver's license number, social security number, or taxpayer
identification number, of a buyer, seller, tenant, or others involved
in the inspection without the approval of the individual or
individuals involved.
(b) This section shall not affect the ability of a structural pest
control operator to perform repairs pursuant to Section 8505 as a
result of a structural pest control inspection.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prevent a home inspector from
naming a seller, a real estate broker, or a real estate salesperson
as an additional insured in a liability insurance policy maintained
by the home inspector.
SEC. 2. Section 7197.5 is added to the Business and Professions
Code, to read:
7197.5.
(a) As soon as it is commercially feasible and prior to commencing
a home inspection, a home inspector shall provide a written
disclosure to the party , or the party's agent, on whose
behalf the home inspection is being performed that includes the
following:
(1) Whether the home inspector maintains professional liability
insurance.
(2) Whether the home inspector maintains general business
liability insurance.
(3) The approximate number of home inspections the home inspector
has performed for a fee, or a statement of the home inspector's
experience and education, including the number of years of his or her
experience as a home inspector, and his or her education related to
home inspection, specifically including the number of educational
hours completed and the educational facility or facilities he or she
attended.
(4) Affiliations with any professional and nonprofit trade
associations.
(5) A list of any home inspection-specific examinations the home
inspector has passed.
(6) Any state-issued licenses he or she possesses that may be
applicable to home inspections.
(7) A statement that home inspectors are not required to be
licensed by state law.
(b) Instead of the written disclosure specified in subdivision
(a), a company that employs more than one home inspector may provide
one written disclosure that includes all of the following:
(1) The number of years of service the company has been providing
home inspections.
(2) The approximate number of home inspections completed by the
company.
(3) The minimum number of hours of education and training the
company's home inspectors receive before they are permitted to
conduct home inspections.
(4) Whether the company or any of its employees belong to any
professional or nonprofit trade associations.
(5) Whether the company or any of its employees possess any
applicable state licenses.


Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Dear Senator:

Please note my concern regarding AB 293. I am a home inspector and an advocate of consumer protection; I do not oppose consumer protection legislation, providing that it is fairly written. AB 293 concerns me deeply.

In a nutshell, there is a double standard regarding what must be disclosed by a home inspector if he/she is a single inspector company or part of a multiple inspector company. The single inspector company must give meaningful disclosure regarding the inspector's qualifications, education and insurance. However, multiple inspector firms can give the qualifications of the inspection company regardless of the individual inspector's experience, or lack of experience. Multi inspector companies will not be required to disclose whether they carry any insurance. The disclosure which is allowed for a multi inspector firm would permit a misleading disclosure and the consumer being given a false sense of security. The following two brief scenarios illustrate how a consumer will be misled if AB 239 is passed:

Example 1: A company could state that ABC Inspections has conducted xxx number of inspections over xx number of years and all our employees have received a minimum of xxx number of hours of training prior to doing any fee paid inspections. The inspector that shows up at a site to do an inspection may have never done a single fee paid inspection and who knows if the training was of any quality. They are not required to disclose the source of the training. They are also not required to disclose whether they carry any insurance or have passed any exams.

Example 2: An inspector with a long history in the industry might set up a small enterprise by offering to become an employee of a number of different inspection firms so that these firms can beef up their disclosure. The enterprising inspector would not be required to actually do inspections for the firms, or might just do one or two per year. I am sure that others can come up with other examples of why this separate disclosure structure would be unfair to individual inspector firms and be misleading to the consumer public

Thank you for taking the time to register my concern. If inspectors are to be required to make a disclosure of their experience, education and insurance coverage, those requirements should apply equally to all inspectors. Anything less is not fair to the consumer or inspectors. I think you will agree this bill is not good consumer protection.



--
"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared"

Louis Pasteur

Originally Posted By: bmalouf
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



It appears that this has passed the Assembly. Here is the official count. What does this mean in terms of becoming law?


VOTES - ROLL CALL
MEASURE: AB 293
AUTHOR: Maze
TOPIC: Home inspections.
DATE: 05/09/2005
LOCATION: ASM. FLOOR
MOTION: AB 293 Maze Assembly Third Reading
(AYES 75. NOES 0.) (PASS)


Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



As an owner of a multi-inspector firm, I would still be against AB293.


The bill is now in the Senate and has been assigned to the appropriate committee.

It is not emergency legislation, so it is on the slow track. At best, it could pass the Senate committee, pass the Senate, and then make it to the Governor's desk. Probably the earliest it would go into effect is 1/1/06, but 7/1/06 or 1/1/07 is more likely.


--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I’ve read over it in much more detail.


I really like 1 (a) (3).

It doesn't seem to be home inspector legislation as much as it is legislation about unfair business practices by home inspectors. I wonder what brought this on. The previous attempt at home inspector licensing a couple of years ago was brought on because the sponsor's daughter, I believe, it was, "had a bad home inspector" or a "bad home inspection." I wonder if the sponsor of this legislation has a relative who owns a multi-inspector firm and is not making enough money due to competition. To me it sounds like someone sat down and said, "Hmmm. What legislation can I get daddy to sponsor that will give me a legal advantage of my competition?"

I wouldn't really have any problem with it passing or failing, but it seems to be a mish-mash of stuff. I will let my legislators know of my opposition to it. Brian's letter is very good, and I shall use that. Thanks, Brian.

Does anyone know how CREIA or ASHI stand on this at this point? They usually tend to weigh in at about this time since it is now in the Senate.


--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Thanks double R,


I understand that CREIA is dead set against the passing of AB293 (I suppose its really SB293 now?) The members I know are passing a letter around also.

I sent my letters to Frankenst...oops, Feinstein and Hoaxer, er..Boxer and an expanded letter to the Gov-er-nator.

I think you are right about the timing, I do feel that a version of this bill will be signed into law.

I wonder if Nick is working on any type of lobbyist to kill/amend this?


--
"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared"

Louis Pasteur

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



bsumpter wrote:
(I suppose its really SB293 now?)

No.

In California, legislation can be proposed in either the Assembly or the Senate. So legislation proposed in the Assembly would be ABxxx and legislation proposed in the Senate would be SBxxx.

If you check the Senate bills, you'll find an SB293 already, so it would be real confusing if they changed, not that Sacramento is not confusing (or confused?) as it is. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)


--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Duh… I should have remembered that!!! icon_redface.gif



“In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared”


Louis Pasteur

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hey, Brian.


Since you're so close to Sacramento, you ought to go over there some time and watch those ladies and gentlemen in action. It will give you a totall different perspective on things and you'll never use the terms "ladies" and "gentlemen" regarding legislators ever again. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)


--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

Originally Posted By: bmalouf
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Thanks for your insights, guys! It’s been a long time (ykes, my 40 year high school reunion is this year) since I took government in school and I forgot how all this is supposed to work.


Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



The key statement here is “supposed to work”…


Double R, I lived in Sacramento for many years and I have gone and watched these typically overpaid moron's "at work"...it makes my stomach turn seeing the crap they pull on a regular basis.

![icon_rolleyes.gif](upload://iqxt7ABYC2TEBomNkCmZARIrQr6.gif)


--
"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared"

Louis Pasteur

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



It will drive one to drinking.


During my freshman year at Texas A&M, when I still thought I wanted to go into public service, I used to go over to Austin (90 miles) and watch the legislators at work. They forever gave me a bad taste for legislators, and nothing through the ensuing 32 years has changed my mind.

Phil Gramm, a former U.S. Senator from Texas, was my Economics 301 professor at A&M. When he ran for Congress, I worked on his campaign, believing that he would not be a business-as-usual politician. Boy was I wrong.

I discovered many years ago why people quit high-paying, secure jobs to go into politics. Once they quit politics, they get to keep all the money that is in their campaign war chests. I believe I read that Phil retired from the U.S. Senate with one of the largest leftover war chests in history, something like $34 million. Now that's a nice retirement salary after only 8 or 12 years in public service!

Phil's got a nice (real nice) home in Maine and a nice (real, real nice) home in Texas, and probably some other things that public service got him.

Shortly after Phil retired, some legislators tried to get some legislation passed requiring leftover war chests to be given to the government. Of course, it failed by something like 90 to 10 in the Senate and the same ratio in Congress. Duh.


--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



ok…now it’s time for a Mojito…gotta be noon somewhere!



“In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared”


Louis Pasteur

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:

BILL NUMBER: AB 293 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 24, 2005
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2005
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 20, 2005
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 17, 2005

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Maze

FEBRUARY 9, 2005

An act to amend Section 7197 of, and to add Section 7197.5 to, the
Business and Professions Code, relating to home inspections.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 293, as amended, Maze. Home inspections.
Existing law regulates persons who perform home inspections for a
fee in connection with a property transfer, as defined. Existing law
defines terms related to home inspections, establishes a standard of
care for home inspectors, and prohibits certain inspections in which
an inspector or the inspector's employer has a financial interest.
This bill would provide that a home inspector may name a seller,
real estate broker, or a real estate salesperson as an additional
insured in a liability insurance policy.
This bill would require a home inspector or a company that employs
home inspectors to provide a specified written disclosure to the
party on whose behalf the inspection is being performed.
This bill would make it an unfair business practice for a home
inspector or a company that employs home inspectors to fail to make
those disclosures or to disclose personal identifying information of
a person involved in an inspection.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 7197 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
7197.
(a) It is an unfair business practice for a home inspector, a
company that employs the inspector, or a company that is controlled
by a company that also has a financial interest in a company
employing a home inspector, to do any of the following:
(1) To perform or offer to perform, for an additional fee, any
repairs to a structure on which the inspector, or the inspector's
company, has prepared a home inspection report in the past 12 months.

(2)Inspect for a fee any property in which the inspector, or the
inspector's company, has any financial interest or any interest in
the transfer of the property.
(3)To offer or deliver any compensation, inducement, or reward to
the owner of the inspected property, the broker, or agent, for the
referral of any business to the inspector or the inspection company.

(4)Accept an engagement to make an inspection or to prepare a
report in which the employment itself or the fee payable for the
inspection is contingent upon the conclusions in the report,
preestablished findings, or the close of escrow.
(5)A home protection company that is affiliated with or that
retains the home inspector does not violate this section if it
performs repairs pursuant to claims made under the home protection
contract.
(6) To fail to disclose or misrepresent any item required to be
disclosed in Section 7197.5.
(7) To disclose personal identifying information, including, but
not limited to, the name, address, telephone number, state or federal
driver's license number, social security number, or taxpayer
identification number, of a buyer, seller, tenant, or others involved
in the inspection without the approval of the individual or
individuals involved.
(b) This section shall not affect the ability of a structural pest
control operator to perform repairs pursuant to Section 8505 as a
result of a structural pest control inspection.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prevent a home inspector from
naming a seller, a real estate broker, or a real estate salesperson
as an additional insured in a liability insurance policy maintained
by the home inspector.
SEC. 2. Section 7197.5 is added to the Business and Professions
Code, to read:
7197.5.
(a) As soon as it is commercially feasible and prior to commencing
a home inspection, a home inspector shall provide a written
disclosure to the party, or the party's agent, on whose behalf the
home inspection is being performed that includes the following:
(1) Whether the home inspector maintains professional liability
insurance.
(2) Whether the home inspector maintains general business
liability insurance.
(3) The approximate number of home inspections the home inspector
has performed for a fee, or a statement of the home inspector's
experience and education, including the number of years of his or her
experience as a home inspector, and his or her education related to
home inspection, specifically including the number of educational
hours completed and the educational facility or facilities he or she
attended.
(4) Affiliations with any professional and nonprofit trade
associations.
(5) A list of any home inspection-specific examinations the home
inspector has passed.
(6) Any state-issued licenses he or she possesses that may be
applicable to home inspections.
(7) A statement that home inspectors are not required to be
licensed by state law.
(b) Instead of the written disclosure specified in subdivision
(a), a company that employs more than one home inspector may provide
one written disclosure that includes all of the following:
(1) Whether the company maintains professional
liability insurance.
(2) Whether the company maintains general business liability
insurance.
(3) The number of years of service the company has been
providing home inspections.
(2)
(4) The approximate number of home inspections
completed by the company.
(3)
(5) The minimum number of hours of education and
training the company's home inspectors receive before they are
permitted to conduct home inspections.
(4)
(6) Whether the company or any of its employees belong
to any professional or nonprofit trade associations.
(5)
(7) Whether the company or any of its employees possess
any applicable state licenses.
(c) The written disclosure, as specified in subdivision (b) of
this section, by a home inspection franchise business, shall only
include information pertaining to work done by home inspectors
working at that individual franchise and shall not contain
information relating to work done by home inspectors at other
franchise locations.



--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Double R,


I wonder...paragraph A, section 3 makes me think that offering coupons to people as an inducement for referrals might have to stop if this bill passes.

Your thoughts?


--
"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared"

Louis Pasteur

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Possibly.


I think it's one of those gray areas which will be tested in court should this legislation pass.

I could live with it, though, either way, because it will simply mean that everyone might have to market to the actual people who pay our bills, our Clients, rather than Realtors. That can't really be a bad thing, can it?

The whole bill as it stands now has a lot of gray areas which will be tested by someone somewhere and, ultimately, in court.

It almost sounds as if a franchise owner or operator wrote the legislation.


--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



One of my attorneys believes that coupons would not be affected because they are not an inducement; the Realtor is merely the distributor for my company in that the Realtor distributes my company’s coupons to the person who will ultimately be using it. The Realtor has nothing to gain by referring my company other than the fact that the coupon might make the Realtor look good. But looking good is not an inducement.


The Realtor has to benefit from an inducement in something other than looking good, such as something measurable or quantifiable (cash, entry into a drawing, or something that cannot be converted to cash but can basically be used as cash albeit for something specific or at a specific location, such as movie tickets, zoo tickets, etc.).

The big-whig attorneys are out playing golf, so who knows what they might think? And who knows what brokerage attorneys might think? Again, it's probably going to be one of those gray areas that ultimately gets tested in court.


--
Home inspections. . . .
One home at a time.

Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I was thinking of offering the clients “x” number of coupons and upon the return to me by other clients (as you have suggested in past/other threads) they could “earn” their inspection fee back.



That may have to stop...before it really begins it seems.


--
"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared"

Louis Pasteur

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Why?



Home inspections. . . .


One home at a time.


Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
(3)To offer or deliver any compensation, inducement, or reward to
the owner of the inspected property, the broker, or agent, for the
referral of any business to the inspector or the inspection company.



--
"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared"

Louis Pasteur