Kansas Bill-2100

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

During the legislative season of 2003, a legislator in Kansas that is a Trial Attorney (representative - Doug Patterson) introduced House Bill 2100. The purpose of the Bill was to make it illegal for Home Inspectors, etc. to use language in a Service Contract or Inspection Agreement that would limit their liability during a home inspection.

In the State of Kansas over the past 10 years there have been several legal precedents established in the State Appellate Court with Alarm Companies, Termite Companys and Home Inspectors that gave us the right to limit our liability or the time of our liability by use of a contract - read and signed by all parties before the service was performed.

Some judges honor them but other judges have ingnored them. It seems representative Patterson has been involved in instances where he or his client had tried to sue HI and gotten nowhere due to the Service Contract language. He now wants to get it rendered illegal. In 2003 it passed the House of Representatives by a slim margin, then died in the Senate.

Monday 1/26/04 we were told he had introduced it in the Senate again and it was scheduled for a 9:30 AM hearing on 1/27/04. After a bunch of guys dropped everything and rushed to the State Capitol (some drove 3 hours in a snowstorm), it was rescheduled (due to the legislature hearing a more pressing Bill - on giving illegal aliens drivers licenses) for 9:30 AM on Thursday 2/5/04.

Thought any Kansas HI's should be calling/writing/emailing their legislator.

Dan Bowers (Kansas City)

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

Good luck with it, Dan.

Others may well disagree, but the only way I'll contact a legislator, unless I know him/her personally (and often even if I do), is with a letter via postal mail. IMHO the noise level with email is too high. Special-interest groups' "remailer" servers abound nowadays, and I can't count how many times I've received the new virus attachment in the last few days (PSA: DON'T open attachments you aren't expecting-- whether you know the "alleged" sender or not; this new one is spoofing addresses right and left!.. sorry, went off on a tangent there) And unless you've got lots of time to attempt to actually getting the legislator him/herself on the phone during the session, a message taken from your phone call isn't going to mean much except that you're some guy who has an interest in keeping a bill from passing (or in getting it passed).

An old-fashioned letter the legislator can hold in hand, that spells out, in clear and logical terms, the reasons the he (or she) should support your position still works best, IMO. A one-on-one followup meeting is golden, if you can arrange it. Keep in mind that he likely has little familiarity with the issue, and is more likely to support your position if you can educate him,whether on paper or in person, as to why he should oppose (or support) the bill. Framing your message in the context of issues and idealogies that he (and his party) has supported is a big plus.

Of course, there's not always time to get a letter written and mailed in time, and the guys who took off for the meeting should be commended. And IF the numbers are there, a big deluge of emails and/or calls can get attention too.

I'm nobody's definition of an expert, but I worked in state government for a few years, had a few opportunities to work with legislators on issues affecting the agency I worked for, and got a fairly good idea of what made an impression (here, anyway). At any rate, sorry for drifting your thread, and best wishes on your effort.

John Edwards
Assurance South, LLC home page
Pre-Paid Legal Services