A few weeks ago we wrote a blog post regarding the dangers of senate bill 17-204. While the bill has yet to pass, another has surfaced which poses an issue for policy holders and by extension roofing contractors. Here are the details.

It’s been a tense month for roofing contractors. After the reveal of how harmful senate bill 17-204 is to contractors, they now have another issue to deal with and it’s name is senate bill 17-045.

According to this document, which contains a detailed breakdown of the bill and it’s effects, there are two primary problems with 17-204:

1. Removing protections the General Assembly passed in 2010 in House Bill 10-1394, and
2. Putting the interests of insurance companies ahead of insureds.

As with any legislation pushed by a large corporation, the general interest is not for the majority and this bill is no exception.

House bill 10-1394 was passed back in 2010 and signed into law by Governor Ritter. The general gist of the bill was as follows:

…faulty workmanship constitutes an “occurrence” and, thus, construction defect claims generally fall within a general liability policy’s insuring agreement.

What this meant was that an insurance company had to investigate and work with a policy holder upon receipt of a construct defect claim.

What does senate bill 45 do to remove this protection for policy holders?

The document elaborates:

…would remove from statute the parts of HB 1394 that for seven years have required, when there are multiple insurers, that they defend a notice of claim, reasonably investigate the claim and reasonably cooperate with the insured.

While the bill’s effects stretch beyond the removal of the previously established precedent to causing delayed payments for policy holders and other problems, by extension it also affects roofing contractors.

How?

The bill would make it more difficult for roofing contractors to procure insurance coverage as well as potentially increase their litigation costs.

Either way you go, the bill has the potential to make life harder for policy holders and contractors.

What do you think?