Senate come to the order, Sergeant-at-arm please close the doors, members get your seats. Members and guest in the gallery please silence your electronic devices. Senator leading the Senate in prayers is Senator Joyce Wandell of Mecklenburg county, all members and guests in gallery please stand. Dear eternal God, king of kings, lord of lords, alpha and omega, and author and finisher of our faith, who sits high and looks low, whose name is great and shall be exalted among all nations and in the earth. We gather here today to first and foremost say thank you. Thank you for another day's journey, and blessing us with an opportunity to serve this great state, North Carolina please select our hearts and minds in this honorable assembly. Your entrusted the members of the senate with great responsibility to govern this state, give us wisdom beyond our understanding and courage to choose the right path no matter her narrower set our feets on the path of your righteousness, guide us in the way of justice and truth, cover us with your mighty protection to lead this state with honesty band integrity, grant us patience and discernment to do what is season in your site. Strengthen us through your word, help us realize that all authority comes from your dear God. Cast down any law which weakens your moral standards, Assist us with your of council to accomplish your work and bring glory to your kingdom let us work together to establish peace in our he=arts and on earth. Unite us in bonds of love to serve North Carolina, all of these things, I ask of you I'll bless this floor in Jesus Christ name and all the people say it Amen Senator Apodaca, Senator Apodaca is a recognize commercial Mr. President journal two third 2015 is being examined and is found to be correct I move to the Senate dispence with the reading of the Journal and that it stands approved as written. Without objection journal for August stands approved as written. Senators we have leaves of absence granted today for senators Bull, Cook, Phosee [xx] Robinson [xx] and [xx]. We do have a doctor today with us today and most of the day Dr. Michael Lancaster Chapelhill and Dr Modellin[sp?] if you please stand to be recognized. Thank you for serving the Senate today. Ratification of the bill, the clerk will read. wrong bills, wrong [xx] ratify for presentation to the governor. House Bill 284, an act to clarify the imposition of a [xx] is not an allowable sanctions for several contempt's in the permitting excused jury duty for students attending post secondary school outside the state. House Bill 556 inact or enact in achieving a Better Life Experience Able Act, house bill 566 enacts to amend witnesses identification reform act to clarify the provision of the act to into establish the procedure for conducting a show up. House bill 724 an act to revise the membership of the North Carolina medical ensure that at least one sufficient assistant and at least one nurse practitioner service members of the board, house bill 814 enact requiring the chief medical examiner to establish a medical examiner training program that includes training regarding certain unexpected death meteorological investigation, and the following bill be ratified
and be prepared for a presentation to the house bill secretary state, house bill 199 an act to amend the city of Ralley and the cities and towns in Mecklenburg county to allow the city to donate retired animals used by the police department or any other city agency or the police officer or employee who has normal custody and control of the animal. Senator Apodaca for what purpose do you rise? Motion Mr. President please, You have the floor senator Thank you Mr we noticed we had a staple in today's calendar so we thought we needed to move some of the bills. First of house bill 173 on the criminal law bill, which has been on the calendar about everyday for the last two months, removed from today's calendar be placed on Thursday's calendar. Objection so ordered. Thank you Mr. President, house bill 571, judicial review of EPA clean power plant is on today's calendar, removed from today's and placed on tomorrow's calendar. Objections are ordered. Thank you Mr. President. Senate bill 581 is over for concurrence, I believe. We'll move from today's calendar, place it on Thursday's calendar Objections are ordered. Thank you Mr. President. House Bill 168 exempt [xx] inventory currently on committee on appropriations based budget moved that it removed from that committee and place don tomorrow calendar. Objection are in order. Thank you Mr. President house bill 117 [xx [xx] comers moved be referred to the committee on finance Objections [xx] House bill 372 15 medicaid modernization currently on the [xx] in the committee, in the senate [xx] moved that it be referred committee on health care Objection [xx] We've heard one survive ways and means [xx] take us right to our calendar today is senators starting with public bill third reading house bill 184 Clerk will read House bill 184 changes [xx] process on claimed property Senator [xx] is recognized to explain the bill Thank you Mr. President members of the senate we have a good discussion on this bill last week I think senator [xx] may have a n amendment for this bill, is that ready? It;s not ready, okay. Just to ask for your support, this was an agency bill requested by The Department of Cultural Resources straight forward bill. Do we have any discussion or debate on the bill? I'm sorry Mr. President. Senator McInnis what purpose do you rise? I'd like to send forth an amendment. Senator you can send forward your amendment. The clerk will read. Senator Garnneth moves to amend the bill. Do we have any, Senator McInnis, sorry, you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you Mr. President, I apologize I was on another matter in my mind their for a moment. This is is a simple amendment that will bring clarity to the issue of some ownership and notice for some items in the history museum, it will place a picture and a copy of any documents that are related to that posting on the new website for up to a year and be linked to all the museums in North Carolina and again will bring clarity to some ownership of some items that are in question, I've worked with the the folks the museum, they're all on board on this and I appreciate your consideration in favorable vote on this amendment. Any discussion or debate on the amendment? hearing none the question before the senate is the adoption of amendment three, all in favor will vote aye, opposed will vote no. Five seconds be allowed for the voting, the clerk will record the vote. Berger aye Bryant, Senator Bryant, Bryant aye, [xx] aye. 42 having voted in the affirmative and zero in the negative, amendment three is adopted, the bill as amended is back before the Body. Do we have any further discussion or debate? Mr. President? Sen. Bryant, for what purpose you rise? I have a question for the bill sponsor or handler in the Senate. Sen. Sanderson, do you yield for a question I do. Thank you, Senator Sanderson. I have a constituent that was involved in a lawsuit against the Department of Cultural Resources involving I
think the shipwreck or something, Queen Anne's Revenge and I'm that there was some dispute between them about photographs or something of this shipwreck and some provision in this bill will the provisions in this bill about photographs or whatever, I was doing something else, I don't have the pull up in front of me, will it affect this lawsuit in what way. Senator Bryant, it's my understanding that this bill will not retroactive and so that lawsuit it's already in progress it will not affect the outcome of that bill. There's some understanding that cultural resources already has the right to do that. This just strengthens that and clarifies it a little bit as to the extent of their right. Thank you, Senator Sanderson Sen. MicKissick, for what purpose do you rise? I'd like to ask Sen. Sanderson a question. Sen. Sanderson, do you yield for a question? I do. Sen. Sanderson it's about that same provision in the bill. I think it's in the last page. I was contacted as well and I understand there is pursuing litigation. To it was my understanding that as a result of the language in this bill it would be determinative of the outcome of that pending case now have the folks at Cult and Resources expressed to you the reason for putting this in this bill at this time, because it certainly wasn't in there when it came from the house. senator I think problem with that law suite didn't bring into question the clearty of whether not this was already an implied the thing that they could do, I think this clarifies it, I can't honestly say that this was a direct result of that lawsuit. The lawsuit you're referring to has been an ongoing lawsuit for several years, it seems like it sometimes settles then it comes up again and it's just been back and forth for sometime. Mr. President, can I ask a follow up question? Do we have follow up session? I do Senator [xx] it's my understanding that there was a lawsuit several years ago that was settled that required a public cultural resource is to provide recognition in photographs that were reproduced the entities that originally captured those images and provided them into public cultural resources so there would be credit recognition from where that came from and that there was a new lawsuit filed within the last two and a half weeks, because those provisions in the settlement agreement were not being enforced and cultural resources was not complying. Were you aware of that? did anybody from [xx] resources indicate to you this settlement agreement for one reason or another had not been enforced, the credit had not been provided and that a new lawsuit had now been filed? President. No sir, no one from culture Resources ever directly tied this new portion in with that lawsuit. I've never had that discussion with anybody from their department, and so I really can't say as to how this will affect that lawsuit. The only thing I can say is that I do not think that it does not say anything I've been retroactive to go back and take into effect any lawsuit that is already in the pipe to be decided upon. Room for one last Senator Aniston do you yield for third question? I will. Would you have any objections since that language was not in the bill when it came back from the house, and since there is some questions about whether it is a settlement agreement being enforced and a little lawsuit is being filed to that particular language or provision being removed from the bill at this time and with perhaps the understanding it would go to a conference committee because if it is actually ongoing litigation and there has been a settlement agreement, it does give me concern when we get involved in it, and I respect your integrity enormously, but if this is being put forward for purposes of short cutting a settlement agreement or pending litigation that gives me concern if all sides have not been heard and conferred with. Senator McKissick, I think that Senator Apodaca introduced this amendment, he might want to speak to that last portion of it probably better than I can. Mr. President. Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? Speak to the bill. Senator Apodaca you have the floor to speak to the bill.
Thank you Mr. President, members. Section five, except as otherwise provided, this act is effective when it becomes law. So that means it would be prospectively going forward not affecting anything from behind I think we're alright there, but as a additional safety net this would be coming back for concurrence we'll probably have a conference committee, so McCasy be happy the place you on that committee, but [xx] one bill out of here and they No problem [xx] thank you Do you have any further discussion or debate? Sender [xx] and sender Brian your mic friends are on Thank you Any further discussion autobay[sp?] hearing non question four of the senate is the passage of the senate committee substitute house bill 184 as amended on a [xx] grading all in favor, but I oppose-rs who have no, five seconds to fill out the voting clerk will record the vote [xx] I 42 having heard of the affirmative zero, in the negative seg may substitute the house bill 184 as amended, passes its third grade, the memo will be engrossed to be send in the house for concurence in the senate committee substitute. House bill 371, the clerk will read House Bill 371 [xx] Claims, Damages and Liability for Support. Senator Newton is recognized to explain the bill. It's a great Bill. I'm not sure if there is going to be an amendment too or not, but I encourage your support. Thank you. Thank you Senator. Do we have discussion or debate. Senator Makusik[sp?] for what purpose of your rise? To send forth an amendment. Senator Makusik[sp? You can send forward your amendment. Clerk will read. Senator Makusik[sp?] you apparently have two which one would you like to start with? I guess its forthcoming. Hold on. Senator Makusik[sp?] we have two up here from you and. The first one would be the one, meaning line one page 24 OK, thank you. The Clerk will read. Senator McKissick moves to amend the bill. Senator McKissick is recognized to explain the amendment. This is an amendment which has been agreed upon with the bill sponsor. This bill is dealing with acts of terrorism, and it would substitute damages from a minimum of $10, 000 to a minimum of $50, 000. Bill sponsor has no objections. I think we're dealing with terrorists and terrorist activities, we need to be as crash[sp?] as we can in letting people know that that's not something we intend to tolerate in this State. So, bill sponsor supports it. Senator Newton, for what purpose do you rise? Speak to the amendment. Senator Newton you have the floor to speak to the amendment. Thank you Senator McKissick for this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. Any other discussion or debate on the amendment? Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? Would Senator McKissick yield? Senator McKissick, do you yield for a question? yes I do, Senator forgot my [xx] at the heads malcrunked[sp?] up, Will this reduce the threshold the 10, 000 or raise it to 50, 000 It raises it to 10, 000 in the bills and raises it to 50, so it will be a minimum of $50, 000 damages all if there are treble any actual damages. Follow up. Senator Kazingior[sp?] I do. Isn't this lessening the bill? No, it it heightens it. It' s a greater penalty not a lesser penalty. Alright. Thank you. I would not want to do that at any circumstances. Any further discussion Motion to order to debate the amendment. Hearing none the question for the Senate is the adoption of amendment 2. All in favor vote aye, opposed will vote no, five seconds be allowed for voting and the clerk to record the vote Davis aye Davis. Tucker no, Burger no 40 having voted in the affirmative and 2 in the negative amendment 2 is adopted, the bill as amended is back before the body. Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? Send forth the amendment sent for amendment, the clerk will read, Senator mMcKissickoves to move the bill. Senator McKissick is recognized to explain the amendment. This is a very straight forward amendment. Bill sponsor has no objections if Senator Blue would have run it if he had been here, but if basically estab[sp?], here's with five year statute was limitation, but what from injury from some type of against that will
be covered by this act is there any discussion or debate on the Amendment? Senator [xx] propose you rise? to see if the amendment is possible to yield for a question. Senator [xx] do you yield? I do. Thank you senator [xx] I'm sorry I wasn't familiar with with this amendment before I came so I want to make sure I understand It is exactly established five years statute limitation so within the five years you have bring a law suit for any injuries relating to our concerning an event that we covered by the bill, senator Blue had asked me to run this on his behalf since he was unable to be here. Follow up. Senator do you yield for a follow- up? Yes, thank you. Because I I have been looking at the statute limitations question prior to this amend what is it changing? I'll be candid with you, I think it will establishing the five years in most years are you where for personal inquiry should be looking at typically three years so if anything it will standing at an additional two years beyond what it would be for [xx] and type of situation, but this is specifically looking at injuries related to terrorist activities as I understand it but senator Blues was not here. So he'd ask that he run this on this one. Senator Stan for what purpose do you rise? To speak to the amendment. Senator Stan you have the floor to speak to the amendment. Thank you Mr. President the amendment actually doesn't change the statute limitation it's in the bill and the bill you will see on line 29 that the statute limitations is five years as it is set out for injuries sustained from terrors activities. All senators be is to copy that statute limitations and put in a general statute that has all statutes limitations listed out so that any lawyer will have quick reference and be able that on this action it's five year statute limitations. Senator Newton for what purpose do you rise? To see if senator Stan will yield to a question. Senator Stan do yield? I do. Thank you senator Stan, so if I understand you correctly, this is really a clarification of the statute, not changing the statute limitations, simply placing it in our general statutes in another location where it needs to be. Correct. Mr. Speaker, floor to speak to the amendment? You have the floor senator Newton. Thank you Mr. President colleagues thanks for the clarification senator Stam. I think that would be a good amendment and I encourage your support any further discussion or debate on amendment three. Hearing none, the question for the senate is the adoption of amendment three, all in favor vote aye, all who oppose vote no five seconds feel after the voting, the clerk will record the vote 42 having voted in the affirmative and zero in the negative amendment three is adopted the bill as amended is back before the body, do we have any further discussion [xx]. Mr. President change my vote Mr. President. On? House bill 371 on amendment two Tucker and Rucho[sp?] have decided to vote no. Senator Apodaca changes his vote to no on amendment two in the final count 39 to 3. Any further senator suit check for the purpose say aye. Sending forth the amendment send forth your amendment It should be on the dashboard Clerk will read Senator Jack moves to amend the bill Senator Soucek is recognized to explain the amendment Thank you Mr, president, members of the senate. This is identical amendment that we had yesterday dealing with protection of our national guards and the rules of Youth commission, we had a procedural question yesterday, so we withdrew it, but we are proceeding with it today, and would be happy to answer any questions. Senator Stan for what purpose do you rise? Can send forward your substitute amendment. Senator Stein you can send forward your substitute amendment, Clerk will read. Senator Stein moves to amend the bill. Senator Stein is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr President, members of senate, Senator Soucek, Senator Apodaca I got to thank you for holding us over for day so we could have more deliberation of this issue. This substitute amendment is exactly the same as Senator Soucek checks amendment as it relates to the national guard peace, the only thing that's missing is the provision that was squander taxpayer dollars. There's a provision in this amendment that allows the rules Review Commission to hire outside counsel without any approval of either the Attorney General or. governor. Under North Carolina law, the Office of the Attorney General represents [xx] Mr. President, point of order? Senator [xx] for what purpose do you rise? Point of order. Senator I don't see anything about Rules Review Commission and Substitute Amendment are we discussing this Amendment? Senator Stein, if you'll just keep your remarks to the amendment please we'll move forward. This amendment is a way
to allow members of the National Guard to protect themselves so that we don't have a tragedy like what happened in Tennessee at the same time as compared to the amendment which it seeks to substitute it will not waste taxpayer dollars which the amendment as originally offered would do because North Carolina law requires that both the Attorney General and the Governor approve any hiring of outside counsel. It is important, a protection to ensure that we don't squander taxpayer money. On average, outside counsel costs five times more than the lawyers we as taxpayers already pay for the Attorney General's office, so that is what this amendment does, I ask for your support. Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? Speak on the amendment. Senator Apodaca has the floor to speak on the amendment. Mr. President, members of the Senate, some quarters and some Bodies have an Attorney General that does represent the Body when they need it. That may not be the case these days, so that being said I move the Amendment 5 do lay upon the table. Senator Apodaca makes a motion to lay upon on the table. Senator Tucker, for what purpose do you rise? Mr. President, to second the motion Lay on the Table. The motion is seconded to lay upon the table Amendment 5 lays upon the table and, sorry Senators, we have to vote on that motion. The question before the Senate is the motion to lay upon the table Amendment 5. All in favor will vote Aye, opposed will vote No, five seconds to be allowed for the vote and the Clerk will record the vote. 31 having voted in the affirmative and 11 in the negative amendment five lays upon the table and amendment four is back before the body Do we have any further discussion are debate on amendment four? Senator Newton for what purpose do you rise? To speak to the amendment. Speak to the amendment Senator. Yes, speak to the amendment. You have the floor senator Mr President, thank you Senator Soucek for this amendment. I think it is very important that we move forward that we move forward in protecting our guards. I think this is well thought out with proper safeguards with command and control, and I really appreciate your efforts in this regard. So I would encourage everyone to vote for the amendment. Do you have any further discussion or debate? Senator Stein for what purpose do you rise? To debate the amendment. Senator Stein you have the floor to debate the amendment Laid the last minute on the table forcing us to vote on two different matters. One is, to allow National Guard's members to protect and then on the other is to create and exception to the general rule which is that before outside counsel hired and taxpayer money spent it requires approval of the Attorney General and the governor. There is a reason why the statute reads that way and so the choices so we are going to allow national guards folks to protect ourselves or we are going to protect tax pay dollars. I wanted to do both those things, but in the instance of this amendment the human life of our national guards to me takes priority so I'll be supporting the amendment, and I just want to let my colleagues know that. Any further discussion or debate on amendment 4? Hearing none the question before the senate is the motion to adopt amendment 4 all in favor vote aye, opposed will vote no. Five seconds to be allowed for the voting, the clerk will record the vote. 42 having voted in the affirmative and zero in the negative, amendment 4 is adopted is back for the body, Senator Barrack, for what purpose do you rise? I wish to change my vote on amendment to from, aye to no. Senator Barrack changes his vote on amendment. Hold on I don't think so. Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? Mr. President, I was given some bad advice for my new law firm on amendment two. I apologize, I would like to go from no to aye. Is there anybody else that would like to change their vote? I think there are probably more Mr. President. Mr. President as the source of that bad advice, I would like yo change my vote from no to aye as well. Senator Tucker, would you like to join in? No sir, thank you. Thank you sir. Which senator Apodaca yield to the questions? Senator Apodaca, do you yield? I do. Senator Apodaca, I have a new card and you can join my law firm anytime you'd like to after meeting some of your home folks this weekend from Weister[sp?] or however you say it out there, I don't want your card. Do we have any so let's get the final count there, the final count was 41-1.
Mr. President. Senator Barrack, for what purpose do you rise? See if Senator [xx] would [xx] a question Senator McKissick do you yield for a question? Yes. This is going back to that amendment, and the reason why I've brought it up, looking [xx] from five years from the date of the injury, we've noticed that we've had a lot of people that wer in rescue, fire and police, another rescue survived in 911, received a lot of damages and some of them may not be known for things they breath in that day, things they are using building material will they not be protected, that happen here in North Carolina, if that wasn't discovered until after five years it's a good question Senator Brown[sp?] I mean the only thing this amendment truly did was to list within the, section of the [xx] test statute called limitations of actions, this particular statute is a limitation that was in the bill. Now typically with statutes limitations in most instances in connection with civil matters is when the cause of action approved which is the date that the injury should have been known or with reasonable due diligence should have been known. So if it was determined that it was actually known or due diligence should have been known within that five years that five years would cover it. But if it could not have reasonably with due diligence been known within that period. Potentially go beyond the five year window, if that explains it. Just a quick follow up. Do you yield for a follow up, Sen. McKissick? Sure. I would hope that it would take care of that but I look there's other ways to attack and things that you may not know in a quick manner, a slow attack over time using different types of bio-terrorist agents that may affect someone's health but not known for a long time. That's why I was just looking to make sure that we have some type of avenue to go after those people more than one way And Sen. Brock, I agree with you completely. We would not want to foreclose that window of opportunity and that probably would be up to a judge determined but it would likely be determined that it was one of those things that could not be reasonably have been known within that period so the cause of action could accrue and lawsuit could go forward, but I wouldn't want to do anything to stop somebody recovering from a terrorist, ever Mr. President? Sen. Rabin, for what purpose do you rise? To address Sen. Brock's point and back to the second amendment, it seems we have to remind ourselves that this is a terrorist act. Why we're giving anybody on statute of limitations I can't figure out and remind folks we are still discovering people getting cancer from agent orange in Vietnam. You make the assumption, I think, that there's going to be an explosion or something like that. The terrorist act can be any kind of an act that has long-term side effect. We still finding out about people who have lung problems in respiratory problems in 911. I think I just changed my vote on that amendment to I don't like it. Negative please Senator Rabin changes his vote on I think that was amendment three, was it two or three. That was amendment two and Senator Barringer for what purpose do you rise? To ask the amendment sponsor, if they'll sponsor a question Senator [xx], do you want bill sponsor or amendment? Well actually the bill sponsor would be fine. Senator Newton, do you yield for question? I do Senator newton, with respect to this amendment too and the technical language. Do you know if it's been drafted? My understanding is that this is so that our statute of limitations has been putting compliance with all there with the statue of limitations of other taught, is the language used in that amendment the same as the rest because then it would be reasonable to think that a judge would interpret it as Senator [xx] that the statute of limitations would not apply until the person had reasonably believed that there was a problem or is it drafted in some other way? Is the drafting consistent in that statute, do you know? Thanks senator [xx[. I think there's some confusion, and this is I think this part of the jeopardy of I've asked doing the amendments on the floor instead of occurring in the committee process unless there's
been a lot of discussion about the amendment and everybody understands what the amendment is I do recall senator Blue bringing this issue up but I didn't see the amendment and didn't recall it was coming before senator [xx] brought it. if I understand the amendment correctly, all the amendment did was make sure that this language that's in the bill is codified appropriately in our statutes. It didn't really change the effect of the statute of limitations at all if I understand it correctly, and I remember him discussing it. It's it's come back to me now on the floor. I can't answer the question about whether or not it's consistent with other statute limitations especially when you talk about knew or should have known, often the statutes limitations so I really can't answer that question without going and looking at it with more detail, it just wasn't in the subject that came up in the middle of the committee it would take sometime I think to go back and look at all those statutes. Thank you. Do we have any further discussion or debate on the bill as amended? Hearing none, the question before the senate is the passage of committee substitute house bill 371 as amended on its third reading, all in favor will vote aye, opposers will vote no. Five seconds to be allowed for the voting, the clerk will record the votes. 42 having voted in the affirmative and 0 in the negative, committee substitute to house bill to 371 as amended, passes its third reading, to be sent to the house for concurrence and the senate amendments. House bill 532, the clerk will read. House bill 532 [**] driver status. Senator Jackson is recognized. Thank you Mr. President, members there's been a lot of discussion on this bill and I think the sides of pretty much [**] I would totally appreciate your support because I really believe in my heart of hearts this is the right thing to do for our packing industry [**] and I would appreciate your support. Do we have any discussion or debate? Senator Rave for what purpose do you rise? Discuss the bill. Senator Raven you have the floor. Thank you Mr. President and members, I was absent on the last ask time to discuss, I would like to put my two cents with them please. I agree with Senator Jackson this is a very important bill. It's important for some reasons that we may overlook. As you recall just a week or two ago we waved and made it much easier for veterans returning to get the CDls and to become truck drivers. This is just a problem that may impede them if we leave it as it is. So, that's just one reason to support this bill and The other reason is, that the tracking industry itself is suffering in the East Coast and on the West Coats worst than in other places in the united States. There are very rapidly becoming an endangered species and they need every chance that they can to make a living and to do so without government interference, so I do include you to support this bill. Do we have any further discussion or debate? Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise? To debate the bill. Senator Bryant you have the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. President and members of the Senate. As you all know I've spoken on the bill previously I just want to briefly recap where we are, we know that with 9719.1 which Senator Jackson's bill will repeal, what we're doing there is eliminating the workers, the mandated workers com coverage for all truck drivers driving under somebody else's DOT permit. including the independent contractors themselves as well as any of their employees under 9719.1 which he is repealing, it never cover independent truck drivers who were driving under their own permits so they were always under regular compensation coverage requiring three or more employees or under 9719 the subcontracto provision. So know we've eliminated 19.1 which is that coverage for all the drivers driving under somebody else's permit including the contractors which will now dump them in to regular workers compensation law that is be covered, it be required to provide coverage for three or more employees which applies to any employer [xx] or to be covered under 9719 which is the subcontractor provision we were discussing last time.
If you remember in 9719 the big loop hole is that if you presented a certificate of insurance onto a contractor and then later cancelled or let that insurance lapsed and that contractor had no notice of that, the contractor would not be liable under 9719.9719 provides a similar scheme of coverage for all contractors principal, intermediate and sub regardless of the number of employees requiring coverage for the employees of the sub under 9719.9719 does not cover, require coverage of the contractor him or herself. So I just wanted to give that preview. With that background Mr. President, I'd like to send forward an amendment which is on the dashboard. Thank you Senator, clerk will read. Senator Bryant moves to amend the bill. Senator Bryant is recognized to explain the amendment Members if you will notice this amendment, for those who want to follow this, if you look at line 23 in this amendment it is in the... As in what we call the not withstanding section, after setting out what the liability would be for principle intermediate, and subcontract, if that is they will be liable for all injuries to any employees, up and down the chain if they do request a certificate of insurance. The it says they would not be liable if the subcontractor has insurance which is on lines 24 and 25 or if the insurance policy is the council which is only 27 and 28 and it used to just say and they were not aware this indicates require they can they don't have to but in order to be relieved they would have to request notice in writing from the issuing carrier of the coverage to be notified of any modifications to coverage. That the policy was expired or cancelled so they'd have to request that notice somehow not being notified in there be unaware in order to be relieved of any liability. It also require that with such a request, the insurance company will have to provide them notice. So then requires that they get notice, it just says to be relieved of liability you would have to have requested that notice and not received it. It also then cross references provisions in the insurance chapter, chapter 28, that already governs what kind of notices are provided and the time frame for those notices. So this will close that loop hole and simply authorize a contractor whose presented a certificate to request to be notified if they want to be completely relieved of liability to request to be notified of any cancellation and the insurance company provide i., I'd appreciate your support for the amendment, thank you. Are there any discussion or debate on the amendment? Senator Jackson for what purpose do you rise? The discuss the amendment. You have the floor senator. Thank you sir. Members, senator Brawley brought this to my attention probably 30, 45 minutes ago and I've looked at it. Actually there was a central amendment brought to me earlier this morning that I've a few calls on, and actually senator Brock amendment is a little more detrimental to industry than what the original amendment I seen this morning was. So I made some calls to some insurance agencies and I asked them several questions and the bottom line is when I voted this amendment, their first response was, this is going to be hard to implement. And the reason being is because if the subcontractor they don't always know that they're the insured not the primary contract, the sub contract is and so they don't know who the primary contractor always is so that's going to be more information I'm going to have to collect. And as the agent I was speaking to he is a multi-state agent, of course we do some business with him on and off at state level but he said, what they're going to do is they're going to pass it down to those agencies, he says and eventually we're just going to go ahead and start charging. [xx] this time bottom line is this amendment in my opinion and I have all great respect for Senator Brown she and I pick on each other a lot and I think we both have mutual for each other, but I would have to ask that you vote this amendment down because I believe it muddy the water even more so than the ideas is on a very complicated issue and this opens up another can of warms that we were not going try into attempt when we were doing this bill
that I've got so I would ask that you vote no, thank you. Any further discussion debate? Senator Brian purpose for raise? To speak on the amendment Mr. President You have the floor I also forgot to mention that adhere to Senator Jackson that I would support the bill if I got approval of my amendment just wanted to say that for the record what people ask vote for the bill but in response to both his comments and to add more information remember that this is a simple provision [xx] I would disagree with Senator Jackson it's much simpler than the previous amendment provided, because it doesn't put any burden on anybody but the principal contractor is they want to be a contractor a principle intermediator or a sub in the chain who wants to be relieved of liability and receives the certificate just with request notice from the insurer and insurer would be obligated to provide that notice it doesn't put any burden on sub themselves only on the insurer, because their is no other provision in the law that would allow another party to get the notice of the cancellation of my insurance contract, except we do that with mortgages, when you go to the bank to borrow money you give the bank the authority to get an endorsement on real property they can seek and you give them the authority to have an endorsement on your policy so they get notified if your insurance cancels. Of course we do it with automobiles all the time, and probably in some other arenas, so it's not unheard of and, the only burden would be on the person wanting relief who gets the it wouldn't require anymore work with the certificate than is already being done. The person wanting relief would just ask for notice. The insurer would provide notices. They already provide this is and many other instances to parties other than the insured that I mentioned. So that would be a reason I would support the amendment. I don't see it burdening the insurance industry or the veterans who will be going into this business. Thank you. Sen. Hise, for what purpose do you rise? To see if Sen. Jackson yield for a question. Sen. Jackson, do you yield to a question? Yes, sir. Sen. Jackson, in relation to this amendment and maybe to this bill as a whole, the question I'm now wrangling at this why whether they are a truck driver, a contractor or others be required to pay workman's compensation from someone who doesn't work for them who may be a subcontractor or others why would you have to pay the workman's comp for someone who is not your employee Sen. Hise, that's an excellent question, probably not a simple answer to it but let me give you a realistic view of this and I don't want to sound like an expert on this issue because I'm not by no means, but I've paid workers comp for a number of years and have been through decades of workers' comp audits. Every year they come and audit your payroll. That's how workers' comp is figured. That's how your premium is figured is on your payroll. Well if my payroll was up when they came out this past spring normally in April when coming to us and our payroll was up so we had to pay more than what we'd already paid for the premium. If they come back this coming April in 2016 and my payroll is basically the same as it was last year or this year I wont pay anything, but if it's reduced I actually get a refund. And so the bottom line is with this they would come in because the principle contractor would require the subs to give him a certificate want to proof that he has workers [xx] insured and there is another reason as well so when he goes through his audit and that says you paid [xx] in her condition in $100, 000 last year why are you not including that in your work [xx] and you say when I have a certificate from [xx] in her condition and he says he had as well per store so you are fleeing clear. That this is just another protection that if they have to notify the principle that just is another 1000 to me and the folks that got notifying because the principle is not insured it is a subcontractor that is the ensure not the principle and I hope that answers your question. Any further discussion or debate on the. Senator Stein what purpose do you rise? To see if senator Brian yield to a question? Senator Brian do you yield for a question I yield. What are reasons why an employer would want this provision even if the injured party is not a direct employee of them. Thank you for that question Senator Stein ladies and gentleman of the senate we are forgetting the original purpose
of workers compensation was really not as much for the protection of workers. As it was to relieve employers of [xx] liability so the advantage of having this chain of liability in impressible intermediaries sub contract the relations is because once you're if the workers compensation statute is considered the sole remedy. Which is your case is covered by workers comp[sp?] is considered you sole remedy you cannot then sue the employer therefore any negligence involved in your accidental injury and that's an advantage to employers. So the reason that this statute was created coverage under the chain of liability is particularly in many the tracking[sp?] case which I have been reading in the appelant appellant cases often involved issues where they would be liable for negligence, if it were not for workers and open there are advocating[xx[can be considered the soul remedy so remember workers confidence is not just for workers there is protection in it for employers, so the reason that employers with except a chain of liabilities provision over the years like 9719 Senator. Is that it keeps them from getting sued, otherwise they know what their liability is. Thank you. Senator [xx] approach Senator Jackson will you yield to a question? Senator Jackson do you yield? Yes Sir. Senator Jackson do our workmen checks go to the injured person. Yes sir, that's not correct. From my understanding and difficult worker's court the attorney collects approximately 40%. In the industry we call that every fourth tick. Okay, thank you. Any further discussion or debate on the amendment? Hearing none question for the Senate adoption amendment one all in favor will vote aye, oppose will vote no. Five seconds to be allowed for the voting clerk to record the vote. Alexander, no, 11 having voted in the affirmative and 31 in the negative [xx] changes his vote from aye to noe 10 having voted in the affirmative and 32 in the negative amendments, if one fails you go on amend [xx] further discussion debate Mr. President Senator what else for purpose I change my vote [xx] changes her vote vote no to I and the final count was not to i. 11:31 any further discussion or debate on the bill? Hearing none, the question for the senate is passage of the Senate Committee substitute House bill 532. Third reading. All in favor will vote aye. Opposed will vote noe. Five seconds be left for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. Bryant? No. 29 having voted in the affirmative and 13 in the negative, senate committee substitutes the House Bill 532 passes it's third reading, will be sent to the house for concurrence in the senate committee substitute. Senate Bill 336 clerk will read, Senate Bill 336, that State Planning Uniform Trust Code. Senator Hartsell is recognized. Thank you Mr. President, Members of the Senate the conference report simply returns the bill to the status it was in when it left the senate three month ago, I would commend it to you. Senator Hartsell ask that you can concur, any further discussion or debate hearing the emulsion about the conference report for Senate Bill 336 all in favor. aye. Opposed, will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. Rucho. Senator Rucho. 41 having voted in the affirmative and 0 in the negative the senate adopts the conference reports and the house will be notified. And that wraps up our calendar for the day. Do we have any notices or announcements? Senator Newton for what purpose do you rise? Thank you Mr President, to send fourth a conference report. Senator you can send forward your conference report clerk will read The
President of the Senate, Conferees appointed to [xx] Senate House of Representatives. Senate Bill 50, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO INCREASE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR WILSON COUNTY TO LEVY AN OCCUPANCY TAX. Senator Brown, for what purpose do you rise? An announcement. Senator Brown you have the floor for an announcement. Republicans will caucus immediately after session. Any other notices or announcements? Any further business to come before the Senate? Mr. President? Senator Barringer, for what purpose do you rise? A brief moment of personal privilege. You have the floor Senator. I would like to invite all the members of the North Carolina General Assembly to a wonderful event one week from tonight. My constituent Christine Danchi, who has just received her Masters in fiddle playing will be with a group of musicians from Chatham, Pitt and Wade Counties in the legislative auditorium, either at 5 o'clock or fifteen minutes after the session adjourns next Tuesday night. I hope you'll come join us for some really good folk music. Thank you. Any other notices or announcements? Senator Berger is recognized for a motion. Thank you Mr. President. I move that the Senate now adjourn subject to standard stipulations set forth in Senate rule 24.1. Ratification of bills, the appointment of comferies, receipt of messages from the House to reconvene on Wednesday August 5th, 2015 at 2:00 P. M. The questions to the Senate now adjourned subject to the stipulations stated by Senator Berger to reconvene Wednesday August 5th at 2:00 P. M. Seconded by Senator Hise. All in favor, say aye? Aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. Senate stands adjourned.