Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Good morning and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. This is our Friday, February 14, 2025 9:30am agenda in Conference Room 229.

This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube and in the unlikely event that we need to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties or any other uncontemplated challenge, we will reconvene to address any outstanding business on Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 9:45am and a notice will be posted on the Legislature's website.

As is our custom in this 90 minute hearing, we observe a two minute testimony time limit because we have received and reviewed all of the written testimony. So if you'd like to make comments, please come up. If you'd like to stand on your testimony and acknowledge that we've received it in written form, then please do so.

First measure is SB 1137 relating to insurance which requires insurers to notify policyholders of rate changes within 30 days of approval by the insurance Commissioner and not less than 30 days before the effective date of the rate change. DCCA insurance division with Comments online Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair Members of the Committee Jerry Bump, Acting Insurance Commissioner will stand on a written testimony providing comments and available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Greg Misakian Online in support. Good morning.

Morning. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair Members of the Committee, I am in support. I had some comments and Excuse me, I apologize. I was just trying to get prepared this meeting. I'll be very here.

We do have your proposed changes while you're pulling it up, so thank you.

Okay. Yeah, my the specific comment here is regarding condominium associations. There's a lot, as we know with condominium issues going on for the past number of years and they haven't been addressed, but the insurance issues that are basically spoken about quite often regarding condominium associations, there's two aspects to it.

A lot of it has to do with deferred maintenance.

So insurance costs are going up, not just because the industry costs are going up, but I would appreciate if you carefully look and craft this with any amendments necessary to address condominium master insurance policies and all of the insurance that goes along with condominium associations, including the directors and officers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also have written written testimony and opposition by Namec Frank Schultz in support, Lynn Matasau in support and late testimony from Keli'iokalani Kaawamo in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members Questions Vice Chair One follow up.

Question for Insurance Division. You know Many of the condominium associations have experienced considerable, I guess, impacts, you know, with late notices. And for many of those that are dealing with master policy issues involving their hurricane coverage, you know, 30 days is not really enough either in many instances in case they have to make changes or adjustments.

So, you know, are there any other recommendations your division can come up with if you feel that the requirement could create significant operational challenges?

So my understanding of the bill, there's two components. One is the renewal notice and the other is after the program has, you know, received a rate filing increase approval and the operational challenges would be more so related to after the rate approval increase is, you know, approved.

The, the issue with condominiums is though that their majority of them are getting their coverage, you know, packaged together and they're getting it from a surplus lines insurer who wouldn't be subject to these requirements to begin with.

So even if we tried to make it more stringent, it really isn't probably going to affect, you know, make an impact on the condominium master policy market. This would have an impact on all other types of insurance, whether it be auto insurance or homeowners or the individual condo unit owners, but not on the master policy.

Unless, unless the policy is, you know, completely written by an admitted carrier, it wouldn't apply anyways.

So for any, I guess, surplus line insurer, do we have any kind of regulatory control over the timing of their either renewal or policy changes?

We don't.

Okay.

It's really, that's the surplus lines are there as a backstop for availability. So the admitted market that we do have control over, you know, ideally we would have enough embedded carriers who can provide this coverage, but because we don't, we allow surplus lines brokers to go out and procure insurance in the non admitted market.

If you try to start placing limitations on that market to some degree, then they may not want to actually write. And then now you have even further exasperated the availability of insurance in the Hawaii market, whether it be from the admitted or the non admitted market.

Okay, well, I guess we will have to rely on the legislation to establish some sort of additional consumer protection assistance for your division. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, we'll move on to the next measure, SB 293 relating to real property transactions. This measure requires a seller or its agent in a residential real property transaction to disclose that the United States Postal Service cannot deliver mail or packages to the residential real property being offered for sale. Hawaii Realtors with comments.

Thank you to stand on comments.

Thank you for standing on Your testimony, That's all the registered testimony we have on this measure. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on the Bill? Members questions next measure is SB 752 relating to insurance.

This measure increases the notice period for an insurer to notify a policyholder of a cancellation or non renewal of a property casualty insurance policy. Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair and the Members of the Committee. My name is Deputy Attorney General Andrew Kim. We have already provided our written comments regarding potential contractual impairment issues and retroactive application. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

We also have written testimony in opposition from namic, Frank Schultz in support, Lynn Matasal in support and individual named Catherine with late testimony and support. Is there anyone else who'd like to testify? Members questions next measure is SB 1575 relating to insurance.

This measure allows authorized insurers in the state to offer building and hurricane damage insurance for condominium buildings at a lesser rate than the building's prior surplus lines insurance policy for the same coverage.

DCCA with comments online

Good morning again. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Gregory Misakian with comments online. Good Morning.

Thank you. Good morning again. Gregory Misakian here testifying on this measure and excuse me again, I'm just pulling things up on my computer.

I've got a lot on my plate today so I've just made some comments on this and again this is something where the Condominium Association that this would pertain to or the individual condominium associations membership usually has a right to vote on certain things.

I do believe that this the way the language is crafted in this Bill that the membership would have input into allowing something with this language. I do realize that state statute usually overrides the governing documents, which is intriguing because we always hear that condominium associations are self governed. But this is something to be concerned about.

So I would just ask that you take a look at that and possibly amend to include a requirement for review if a vote is required by the membership.

Thank you very much. Lynn Matasal in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, question? Okay, if there are no questions, we'll move on.

SB 1046 relating to condominiums requires any managing agent to notify each unit owner and the real estate Commission when a condominium Association that the agent manages fails to meet budget and replacement reserves reporting requirements. Real Estate Commission with comments online Morning.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair Fukunaga and Committee Members. Keating Klein Hands Condo specialists testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Real Estate Commission. We'll stand on our written comments and available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. CAI in opposition.

Morning. Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair, Senator Richards, My name is Phil Nurney. I am testifying. Richard Emory is in another matter. We're concerned that this would interfere with the principal agency contractual relationship between a managing agent and an Association.

I notice for one thing that it also in the actual language says that the the notice requirement would apply whenever the board fails to comply with this chapter not section, which means that the managing agent, which is not typically an attorney, would need to make legal judgments on a regular basis, including where there are discretionary kind of decisions to be made.

So operationally I think it's very difficult. It would be corrosive of the principal agent relationship. And Senate Bill 253 would be preferable. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii realtors in support. Thank you, Mr. Nurney. We have you also in opposition. Thank you. Gregory Misakian with comments online.

Aloha again, Greg Misakian on this measure. And again, I'm just pulling up my statement. I do want to read something from my comments. I think it's just important. I know my testimony was late on this, but I do want to read this.

So the concern that I have with a lot of the condominium measures when we're discussing managing and I've seen a number of bills this year and in previous years is what is the definition of the main managing. And some believe that when you say managing agent, it's property manager or what's often referred to as the community manager.

But in the context of what's codified within the statute and the way it's worded in the definition, the managing agent of the management companies is the broker or brokers, more than one, if principal broker and an additional broker. And these property managers and community managers are not licensed. So defining what managing agent is is very important.

And you know, when you look at HRS514B-132, it's defined within there. I'd ask you all to please carefully look at this for this bill and all bills that you're looking to pass this year and in the future because in the past it's been something that's come up time and time again.

So thank you for that opportunity to make that comment.

Thank you. We have written testimony from the Palihua Townhouse Association in opposition, Ann Anderson in opposition, Lila Moore in support, Julie Wassell opposed Lane Madisal opposed Primrose Leong Nakamoto opposed. Lance Fujisaki, opposed. Laurie So Catch opposed. Paul Ireland Coughtonal, opposed. And lay testimony from Raylene Tano in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify?

Members questions? I have a question for the Real Estate Commission. Morning Chair. Could you respond to Mr. Misakian's concern about the ambiguity of the definition of managing agent?

Well, anecdotally we can confirm that branch staff does receive calls. The callers do express their concerns with their managing agent.

And we do have to explain that the managing agent is the real estate broker and the entity that is contracted with the Condominium Association, whereas they have the particular concern for the individual assigned to the Condominium Association, which may have many titles and currently it's unclear because they do not possess a license at this time.

So would you be opposed to proposing clarification to this definition? I guess more specifically, are there any concerns that would come to mind if we would further clarify the definition?

Well, if the bill were to specify for the individuals and it appears that maybe they would be subject to regulatory controls, then we would probably include in future testimony regarding sunrise analysis.

But at the moment, as currently drafted, it is the real estate broker that would be reporting to the unit owners and the real estate Commission, which would be doable, I think, thinking administratively how it would be done is that the individual assigned would report to the managing agent and the managing agent would provide the correspondence to the Real Estate Commission that they did not meet their budgetary requirements.

I, I'm not sure if you're, if you're telling me you like it or you don't like it.

Oh, well, I, I don't believe we can make a recommendation, I guess because.

The point, the point I think the previous testifier is making is that it's confusing for. It's confusing for the condo unit owners to tell who's actually accountable. And so that's the question is should we clarify that in the statute or not?

I guess it would be beneficial to define the individual assigned to the Association, whether it be Association manager, account manager, community Association manager whatsoever.

It's just that I think anything further where it starts to impose responsibilities, then it's, we would believe it would go more into sunrise territory, unless it's just simply a definition, just for clarity, but we would have to look at the, the build language.

All right. Yeah, so noted. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Okay, we'll move on to the next Measure. Which is SB 1050 relating to insurance. This measure allows captive insurance companies that are not risk retention captive insurance companies to apply to the Insurance Commissioner for certificates of exemption from examination after meeting certain requirements.

Insurance Division DCCA in opposition online.

Yep. Good morning again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Jerry Bump, Acting Insurance Commissioner. We'll stand on our written testimony in opposition to this Bill and available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. The Hawaii Captive Insurance Council in support. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Keohokalole. Madam Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Paul Shimomoto.

I'm the President of the Hawaii Captive Insurance Council, a nonprofit organization that for 36 years has supported and continues to support nearly 300 actively licensed captive insurance companies in the state, all of whom contribute approximately $120 million a year to the state economy. Appreciate the opportunity to testify.

We do stand on our written testimony, but I'd like to make just a couple of quick points. This Bill is a well balanced and forward thinking approach to regulation. It acknowledges and rewards certain gold standard companies that have consistently adhered to regulatory requirements and have demonstrated sound financial management. Importantly, it will incentivize others to achieve the same.

The requirement that companies must continue to file all necessary financial statements and other annual reports and must continue to comply with all relevant provisions of the laws and regulations means that our regulatory framework remains intact.

Importantly, the provision does not allow for a relaxation of oversight, but eliminates duplicative regulatory efforts. Duplication that none of our licensees want or need and duplication that our regulators should not have to endure.

In doing so, the Bill will allow our regulators to focus resources and personnel in critical areas such as monitoring higher risk, more complex entities and reducing a growing and problematic backlog with administrative and regulatory functions within the branch.

Lastly, it strengthens Hawaii's competitive position in the global captive insurance Market. One that increase- is increasingly competitive with 39 other states actively engaged in business. By allowing gold standard companies to apply for exemption from exams, Hawaii distinguishes- will distinguish itself from other jurisdictions that impose rigid, continuous and often expensive oversight.

This will be a clear signal that Hawaii is open and friendly to business and efficiency. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Misakian, online with comments.

Thank you, Chair. Again, Greg Misakian. Yeah, I just wanted to make one comment on this. And again, my testimony was submitted late yesterday, so I noticed the number of years. So I would ask that you please amend SB 1050 to reduce the number of years an exemption may be allowed from five years to three years.

So there's a Section G and if you look at Section G, I'm just asking that you change that from five to three years. Thank you.

Thank you. We have written testimony from AIG Insurance Management Services in support. Alaka'i Global Inc. in support. Paramount Insurance in support. Hawaii Captive Insurance Council, Brown and Brown in support. Late testimony from Pacific Risk Solutions in support. Martin King in support and Jill Mura in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify?

Members questions?

Quick, quick question. I guess you guys maybe Insurance Division?

I don't know. I kind of agree with what Mr. Misakian is saying. I think I co sponsored this one. I can't remember, but I had concerns with it last time around because of what the Insurance Division said, you know. But at the same time, you know, I understand what you guys are saying.

Do you think there's some kind of a middle ground either through Mr. Misakian's amendment of three years or perhaps making insurance captives who are in this period of not being examined, in essence, if something happens, the Insurance Division investigates them, they would be open to UDAP or some kind of trouble damages or something.

Would that be something a way to try to create for your essence, more business regulatory environment but still maintain some type of examination oversight?

Thank you for your question. I think with regard to the three versus the five years, the reason the five years is there is because for the types of companies that would be eligible for this exemption, that's what their current statutory schedule is, is five years.

With regard to your other question about what if things go sideways within the five years and they're not being examined, the practical reality is is that the way the statutes work for captives is, captives have to they're required to get approval for basically everything they do along the way.

So and they're also this Bill does not exempt them from filing their current statutory financial statements. So the division will always have on an annual basis a picture of what the financial condition of these companies are in addition to having all of these business plans and changes along the way year over year as they happen.

So it's not really the case that they're going to operate under the radar. Nobody's going to know what they do and nobody's going to know what condition they're in for five years. That's not the reality.

Because your annual filings right?

It would still be in place. They can intercede at any time. Then even though you have the exemption from.

That is correct. That is correct.

Thanks, Chair.

Question?

Can you provide, I guess, some order of magnitude for some of the other states that currently have fairly large captive presence?

Yes. Yes, I can. Well, Vermont is the largest domicile. They probably have close to 700 actively licensed companies, so more than twice ours. They also have a very different and more robust, I would say, division that examines and monitors their captives.

There are also other jurisdictions across the country that some of them don't even have any examination requirements at all, period. This is sort of in between, right?

This is where the Commissioner would have the ability to make a determination, case by case, factual circumstances presented, to allow certain companies, not all, but probably certain companies that are deserving to get these exemptions.

Would it be more likely that Asia Pacific or other international companies might select a location like Hawaii based upon its proximity or presence, you know, kind of remote from the rest of the United States? Or is that disadvantage rather than an advantage?

Well, we definitely are an advantage. So Hawaii currently has 46 actively licensed companies with Japanese parent companies that proximity and the cultural affinity with Japan are huge reasons why they're here.

That said, with the US Based companies, we have companies that predominantly from the West Coast, again for proximity reasons, but we also extend all the way across to the East Coast as well. Companies that are in the business of captive insurance are looking for business friendly domiciles.

Yes, proximity is important, but the strength and innovation of the domicile really, I think, carries the day at the end.

Okay, thank you.

So do you think that next, sorry chair, do you think that next year we should take a serious look at setting up within the insurance division, a captive division that would focus solely on working with you guys?

We have it. We have it existing already and it has a deputy Commissioner now who's the administrator of the branch. And I believe they have approval for, I think up to 13 or 14 examiners within just that branch alone.

I'm not sure that they're completely staffed at the time, but I think that's roughly what they're allotted at the moment.

As I was just gleaning from your earlier comments, it didn't seem like that was the case. More support for that would make the better business environment per capita.

The challenge we're having right now is just right as the domicile grows, thankfully, because we're almost at 300 now. We're getting more companies, but what we're not getting is we're not the insurance division staff and capacity is not growing at the same rate that the licensees are.

So you've got more exams every year because you've got more licensees coming in, but you have the same number of examiners with more and more things to do.

You'd figure they would come in and ask us for these Resources themselves right? Okay. Thanks, Chair.

Chair?

Thank you. From an, from an industry standpoint, economic development growth, contribution to our GDP. Where are we with that? What kind of numbers are we talking about?

Senator Richards,

So 120 million a year is our estimate to the state economy through General excise tax and those types of things. Visitor dollars. Because the companies and their people come here annually to have meetings and attend our annual conference.

Right now, I think in 2023, the number was gross written premiums through all of our captives is north of 17 billion, probably closer to 20 now, 20 billion a year. And those companies, these captive companies that are here, have invested probably north of $2 billion in our Hawaii financial institutions.

Yes, we're looking to shore up our state finances. This seems like a potentially, I won't say low hanging, but moderately hanging fruit. So, Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? I have a question for the Insurance Division. Thank you, Jerry. I guess could you respond to the. I guess what's being said is, you know, the Insurance Division has access to the financials of all these captives on a, on an ongoing basis. So things have been going well.

I mean, are there examples of risk that you can cite to give us more cause for concern about moving in this direction?

Sure. So I'll touch on a few things. I did take some notes. Specifically, I think one of the questions asked was, do other states provide that? He's right. There are other states who don't have any requirements. There are some that just say that they may- may request an exam.

Most of the top ones like Vermont, Tennessee, Delaware, they all have a similar requirement to what we currently require. I think some of our concerns is in those, the details or lack of details in who would qualify. I understand they're trying to provide discretion to the Commissioner.

I did have a productive meeting earlier this week with HCIC representatives. I think we're willing to, you know, perhaps work through some of that. Just as the Bill is currently worded. There is concerns I'll mention, for example, turning in financial statements.

Right now, we make, we make exemptions to certain entities that we feel are less at risk, that they don't have to do audited financial statements. They just give us attestations. And in fact, those entities might be more in line with us, you know, waiving their exam requirement because maybe they're in runoff or there's-

There's a significant less risk. One of the other, I guess, parallels made was that we get, you know, we get notified of any business plan changes, any, you know, we get financial statements filed Whether they be audited or attestations, that's what the company is reporting to us.

We don't know if there's things that they're not reporting to us. And that's where, when we go in and do the examination on a five year period, that's where we can identify. You know, we have found in the past perhaps they instituted a new plan program and didn't put in the business plan amendment with us.

And so that's a finding that we would find in the, in the, in the audit. I guess another concern is, you know, it does give a lot of the discretion the Commissioner, but if the Commissioner then starts using that discretion, it could lead to a lot of confusion between the brokers.

Like you know, excuse me, sort of fighting a cold here. You know, why did you grant this, this company an exemption and this one you didn't. So perhaps we would develop, you know, we could develop internally sort of guidelines and rules that we could use to make that determination. But again, I guess there's just a concern.

There is 15 positions that are allocated currently. We're actually transferring in another position from our cable television division in DCCA into the captive area. He is correct. We have had difficulties filling those vacancies, finding qualified people who want to be captive examiners, usually with a financial background.

We're currently I believe at 12 of the 15 that we currently are authorized or filled. And so as we grow we would look, you know, we are open to perhaps exploring some sort of an exemption. But right now as it's currently worded, I think we do have concerns. Thank you Senator McKelvey.

So if this Committee were to amend the measure to basically limit to self attestation companies, would that address some of your concerns there?

I mean there still may be concerns with some of those companies. Right. You know, if, if their financial condition gets you, I don't know how many of them are that are that. So I would have to talk to the captive administrator. Unfortunately he couldn't attend today.

Well, you just said that if they're self attest anyway that they're considered to be low risk and perhaps that should be the company. So what's wrong with limited?

That's my understanding. But again I would, I would feel more comfortable before saying that if I could check with the captive administrator. And again that may not really meet the needs of, of what the industry is asking for.

Like I'm not sure how many, how many companies currently we grant that, you know, requirement where they don't have to submit audited financials so I'm sorry, I don't have a clear answer for you on that.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure, I believe is SB 1212, relating to the Real Estate Commission. This measure requires at least two members of the Real Estate Commission to be licensed professional engineers or architects engaged in business in the state for three years immediately preceding the appointment.

Frank Schultz in support and Gregory Misakian with comments online.

Thank you, Chair. Again, I'm Greg Misakian. I do have a concern, and I'll make this simple. I'm asking that somehow you please amend this Bill to address concerns with conflict of interest. What I'm seeing, and specifically I'm seeing it with condominium bills, that there's some that testify that do wear many hats.

So sometimes they get up and they'll speak as CAI representative or sometimes as an individual or for a real estate company that they own, but they're actually a real estate commissioner and they also work for a management company. And you all know who I'm speaking of.

I'm not going to mention right now, but you all know who I'm speaking of. And it's a concern, and it's happening on a regular basis, including today, and it's a strong concern that I have.

So I'd ask that this Bill and any other Bill and actually looking and investigating this concern is addressed because this has been going on for far too long. And unfortunately, the voices of condominium owners are not being heard throughout Hawaii.

But the voices of one or two people are regularly heard and they have obviously access to the table with our legislators. So thank you for addressing that concern. It's a long standing one.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay, we'll move on. SB 1366 is next, relating to interest on insurance proceeds related to a mortgage loan.

This measure supports mortgage owers during disasters and other instances of damage to property by requiring licensed mortgage servicers and financial institutions to pay interest on insurance proceeds held for the benefit of consumers.

It provides that a fee shall not be charged to the borrower in connection with the maintenance or disbursement of insurance proceeds received by the financial institution and provides that the minimum interest rate paid on insurance proceeds be based on the national rate for money market accounts as determined by federal regulations. DCCA Division of Financial Institutions in support.

Dwight Young, Commissioner, Financial Institutions. Sorry.

Go ahead. We have you now.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, we stand on our written testimony. I'm available if you have additional questions.

Thank you very much. Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii is in opposition. Hawaii Bankers Association with comments?

Not available on Zoom Chair.

We have her in the room. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. ... Miyajima with Hawaii Bankers Association. I'll be brief. We, we stand in our written testimony with comments. We know that there's a House Bill that's moving and we're working with the DFI Commissioner on language. So happy to answer your questions.

Thank you very much. We also have the Hawaii Credit Union League with comments offering late testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members questions? Okay, we'll move to the last measure, SB 1367 relating to installment loans.

This measure clarifies the intended scope of 480J HRS, which is the regulation of installment lenders, and that the law does not intend to eliminate the ability of lenders to make low interest rate loans under existing interest and usury laws.

It replaces the term consumer loan with the defined term installment loan for consistency throughout the statutes and requires loan maintenance fees to be prorated daily to prevent consumers from incurring fees once the loan is paid off.

It also allows lenders to charge a convenience fee of up to $5 for debit card payments, providing consumers more options for repayment. DCCA, DFI in support online.

Young Commissioner of Financial Institutions. We stand on your. We stand on our testimony. I'm here if you have questions.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we've received on this measure. Members, any questions for DFI? Okay. If not, we will recess for decision making. Okay. Welcome back. We're here for decision making on this 9:30 a.m. Friday, February 142025 agenda in Conference Room 2 to 9. Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection.

The first measure is SB 1137 relating to insurance. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments adopting the insurance Commissioner's proposed amendments, making technical, non substantive changes throughout the measure and defecting the effective date of the bill to July 1, 2050 Members. Any discussion?

No. Thank you. Chair. And I just want to thank the Insurance Department for their helpful comments on the measure.

Any other comments, questions? If not passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you.[Roll Call] Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next measure is SB293, relating to real property transactions. As noted in the Realtor's testimony, this already is in place in the disclosures, so the recommendation is to defer. Next measure is SB752 relating to insurance.

The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments will adopt the Attorney General's proposed changes and defect the effective date of the measure to July 1, 2050. Any discussion if there's none? Vice Chair Passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing None. Measures adopted thank you.

Next measure is SB 1575 relating to insurance. The recommendation is to pass this measure with a defective effective date of July 1, 2050. Any discussion if not passing with amendments? Chair Voltzai thank you.

Of the Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing None. Measures adopted thank you very much.

Next measure is SB 1046 relating to condominiums. Members, I'm going to recommend that we defer decision making on this Measure to Friday, February 21, 2025 at 9:45 a.m. in this room, 2 to 9. I'd like to take a look at that comment from Mr. Moussakian about ambiguity in the definitions, and we have some time before the decking deadline.

The next measure is SB 1050 relating to insurance. This is the captive insurance measure.

Members, my intention is to move this bill, but in order to foster some discussion between the parties, I'd like to defer decision making on this measure until Friday, February 21, 2025 at 9:45 a.m. in Conference Room 2 to 9 to see if we can make the changes here and then then just have the House accept our awesome bill.

The next measure is SB 1212 relating to the Real Estate Commission. Okay, so what we're going to do on this bill, Members, is pass with some amendments.

We're going to make some specific changes to the preamble to address to better clarify the point of this measure, which is that the Real Estate Commission needs to pay better attention to the condominium crisis and that I have some real concerns about the lack of engagement, especially among the Commission Members, to escape the scope and severity of the crisis in the condominium market.

This is one of their responsibilities and although it might be a minority part of their minimal part of their workload, it is still part of their workload.

And so the, you know, the objective of this measure was to ensure that there were Members on this Commission who have an understanding of the deferred maintenance concerns in the condo market right now and of the requirements of and we've heard other measures on this as well, about what it takes to actually take care of a vertical building to ensure that these buildings are insurable in the moment, but also so that proper attention is being paid to so many of the problems that are coming before our Committee right now because things aren't working right.

So what I'd like to do is pass with amendments the effective date to July 12050 add those clarifying remarks to the preamble. And just to make sure we're not eliminating real estate broker positions on the Commission, will expand the size of the Commission to 11 and create two new seats for these Design Professionals Members. Any discussion?

Senator McKelvey.

I was. Yeah, Coming into this, I was a little confused. But I thank you for the clarity. Love the changes that you're making to this measure. Look forward to supporting this 100%. Thank you again.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? If not Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes.

I thank you. All the Members present any voting with reservations or objections Hearing none. Measures adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure is SB 1366 related to interest on insurance proceeds related to a mortgage loan. Recommendation is to pass with amendments adopting the DCCA's proposed amendments, making technical, non substantive changes throughout the measure and defecting the effective date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay. If not Vice Chair passing with amendments.

Chair votes aye.

Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Hearing none Measures adopted.

Thank you very much. The last measure on the agenda is SB 1367 relating to installment loans. Excuse me. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments adopting the proposed changes by the dcca, making technical, non substantive changes throughout the measure and defecting the effective date to July 12050. Any discussion?

Members seeing none passing with amendments. Chair votes.

I thank you. Of the Members present any voting with reservations or objections. Hearing none. Measure is adopted.

All right, we are adjourned. Thank you.