Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Senator-elect Michael Roberson speaks at the Republican election night party Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010, at the Venetian.
By Anjeanette Damon (contact) 
Wednesday, March 20, 2013 | 2 a.m.
Sun coverage
Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, said at the start of the legislative session that reforming the law governing how homeowners can sue for construction defects was at the top of his agenda.
But first he had to find a Democratic committee chairman who’d even be willing to entertain the idea.
In a legislative sleight of hand late Monday, Roberson succeeded in quietly slipping a duplicate of his construction defects bill into an unrelated measure that will be heard by the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, whose chairman has said he’d be willing to give the issue a hearing.
Roberson is trying to rebalance the law in favor of homebuilders, who have long contended it favors trial lawyers by entitling litigating attorneys to lawyers' fees and by so broadly defining a construction defect that the cases are difficult for a builder to defend against.
His move Tuesday may have been a brilliant maneuver that prolonged the life of a measure the Democratic majority isn’t too keen on, or it may have so antagonized Democrats — who failed to see Roberson’s move coming and are mad about it — that it only further set back the Republican’s effort.
“I’m just exercising my rights as a lawmaker,” Roberson said, deflecting questions about whether he sought a friendlier venue for his bill. “I just introduced a bill and it was referred to the appropriate committee.”
Earlier this session, Democratic leadership agreed the Senate Judiciary Committee would hear all construction defect legislation.
And that’s just what happened in February. Roberson’s original construction defect bill, Senate Bill 161, was sent to the Judiciary Committee, where it is awaiting a hearing.
Tick Segerblom
The problem for proponents of construction defect reform is Judiciary Chairman Sen. Tick Segerblom, a lawyer himself, has been vocal about his antipathy for the bill, which he essentially labeled as dead on arrival.
“As far as making it worse for homeowners? That’s not going to happen,” Segerblom told the Las Vegas Sun last month. “The Republicans’ goals? That’s just not going to happen.”
Rather than simply tilting the construction defects law away from trial lawyers and toward builders, Segerblom contends Roberson’s measure would make it more difficult for homeowners saddled with a new house full of construction problems to seek redress.
On the other hand, Sen. Kelvin Atkinson, the chairman of the Commerce and Labor Committee, has said he believes the bill deserves a fair hearing.
Kelvin Atkinson
“I’m not taking a position on the issue, I just think it should get a hearing,” Atkinson said.
To get his measure in front of Atkinson, Roberson deftly timed his move, waiting until the deadline for bill introductions — usually a frenzied day in which lawmakers are consumed with ensuring their bills make it out of drafting.
On Tuesday, more than 100 bills were introduced in both houses, meaning lawmakers were not scouring the details of each measure — a fact Roberson was counting on.
Roberson drafted duplicate construction defect language and attached it to Senate Bill 411, a measure dealing with licensing mortgage lenders that was headed to the Commerce and Labor Committee.
Anyone who simply read the top line of Senate Bill 411 would see it as a mortgage lending bill and not construction defects.
In the final moments of a late-night Senate floor session Monday, the secretary read aloud a summary of Senate Bill 411 — including the mention of construction defects — and the Senate voted en masse to introduce it and refer it to Commerce and Labor.
Republicans sat on pins and needles wondering whether Democrats would notice their move.
Democrats did not. Not a single objection was raised.
“I made a mistake: I did not even read it,” Atkinson said later.
“I didn’t know it was happening,” Segerblom admitted.
Now, two construction defect bills exist: One belonging to Atkinson, who admits he’s more open-minded to the idea; and one belonging to Segerblom, who reiterated Tuesday he’s not of the mind to give the bill a hearing.
The question, however, is whether Roberson’s ploy will work.
On Tuesday, Atkinson pleaded ignorance when asked if he knew what Roberson was up to. He said he knew a portion of a construction defects bill was coming his way, but he didn’t know the entire measure would be hidden inside the mortgage lending bill.
And he said he has no intention of stealing the issue away from Segerblom.
“Sen. Segerblom has told me he will give it a fair hearing and we owe it to him to allow him to do that,” Atkinson said. “I wouldn’t disrespect Tick or the caucus by having a subsequent hearing on the same bill.”
But Segerblom has in no way agreed to even hold a hearing on the bill.
“It probably never hurts to try to get your bill in two different places, but I’m not sure it will make a difference to the outcome,” Segerblom said. “I don’t know if we’ll hear it. We’ve got 60 or more bills to hear and if there’s nothing new in there to change the world, I don’t know why we would hear it.”
In the past two sessions, lawmakers have killed construction defect reform bills. In 2009, a compromise measure — sponsored by former Democratic Sen. Terry Care — made it through the Senate, but it died in the Assembly.
It’s Care’s bill that Roberson is seeking to revive. But Segerblom considers the door closed on that measure.
If Segerblom doesn’t give the bill a hearing, would Atkinson? He equivocated a bit with his answer.
“At this current moment I have no appetite to hear the bill,” Atkinson said, smiling wryly when asked if he reserved the right to change his mind later.
Lobbyists on both sides of the issue are staying away from the political fight, worried about further antagonizing either chairman. Representatives for the building industry declined to comment.
One veteran lobbyist who has a peripheral interest in the effort described construction defects reform as being like “World War I."
“It’s trench warfare,” he said. “Each move you jump up a few trenches and then you get knocked back. I’m not sure whether this will move it up or back.”
Representatives for the trial lawyers aren’t too worried about it. While they were happy to have the bill in Segerblom’s committee, they see the Democrats’ irritation over Roberson’s ploy as anything but a setback.
As one lobbyist opposing Roberson’s construction defect effort said: “I’m just going to stand back and watch the implosion.”
"I wouldn't disrespect Tick or the caucus by having a subsequent hearing on the same bill." -- Kelvin Atkinson
Who does he owe his allegience to? Democrat Party leaderhip? His party? Or the people who elected him? This is why the people hate politicians.
I for one question who Roberson is representing here. He is fighting so hard to change a law to benefit the builders and possibly hurt the consumer in the long run.
As a homeowner with yellow brass plumbing issues I would not want my award in any judgement be based on just the costs to repair without my costs of a lawyer to be paid as well. Otherwise I might of as well spent the thousands out of pocket to repair an issue caused by the builders using inferior parts just to literaly save a few dollars per home.
As well if I have an issue and all my neighbors have an issue why shouldn't the community be allowed to represent everyone as we are a collective when it comes to property values? If I repair my home but no other neighbor or only 50% does that will drop the entire communities home value including mine even though I did the repairs. I want all the neighbors to be fixed so our property values and long term values are not hurt as a collective.
hey theyre republicans,all for them,none for you
Kelvin Atkinson,
"At this current moment I have no appetite to hear the bill," Atkinson said, smiling wryly when asked if he reserved the right to change his mind later."
This looks like political exposure. The question, who is Kelvin Atkinson advocating for? This raises questions about how he operates.
Did Kelvin Atkinson really not know about Michael Roberson intentions? Another question, just the Brooks incident.
This ... this just can't be true.
Yet another repube who favors corporations over average citizens? Say it ain't so.
lol
Chapter 40 needs to be adjusted. I can't tell you how many good sub-contractors have gone out of business because of Chapter 40. The homebuilders write contracts that put the sub-contractors on the hook for indemnification. It's the sub-contractors insurance carriers that pay the bill, but of course there is a deductible. Some are as high as 50k so the subcontractor can afford the policy.
Why do you think the HOA scandal was here in Nevada? Chapter 40.
It is a horrendous law that doesn't give anyone an advantage other than attorneys. They are currently guaranteed costs/fees. The case can be completely bogus, as many are, but the attorney's get paid. You as a homeowner are drug thru the process, and it takes years. By the time it's done you are just happy it's over, you don't care that you didn't get enough money to fix the so-called defects.
At a minimum this law needs definition of what exactly a defect is, and loser pays.
Tick Segerbloom should be ashamed that he is participating in blocking the repair of this law. How many more people need to die before he understands
It's funny how contractors hate Chapter 40 because it allows homeowners to get attorney's fees and costs on top of the cost to repair so they are made whole, but they have the absolute guarantee to recover their attorney's fees and costs in a mechanics lien case so they are made whole and don't have to use part of the money to pay lawyers and experts to get it for them.
Subcontractors have not gone out of business because of bogus Chapter 40 claims. They have gone out of business because of shoddy work and the economic melt down that had absolutely nothing to do construction defects.
The fact this guy went to these lengths to try and screw Nevada homeowners is despicable.
If you want to remove guarantee attorney fees win or lose fine. But lets not mix up what a defect or bad material use is and the homeowners need to be protected.
Regarding the HOA scandal that is being used as a reason to change Chapter 40 but the fact was many state and federal laws were broken. It was not a free access of money, it was true white collar crime taking place.
Many forget people that want to do things illegal for personal gain will ignore laws already on the books. We don't need more laws, we need better enforcement of the current laws and putting people away who break them.
sorry. Meant to say remove guarantee attorney fees if you lose. If you win yes attorney fees should be paid. Perhaps settling and not fighting a case that the builder knows was a defect or poor material use and they can save huge amounts in attorney fees.
Only one thing makes attorney's money when they are willing to do it based on attorney fees and not a percentage of settlement. A case that is faught through the courts and not settled and quickly resolved by the defendent.
The truth is being skewed by the contractors.
Chapter 40 only allows attorney's fees if the homeowner wins and proves they have defects. And even then, they can only be be awarded by the Judge. So it is that way, but that's not what the contractors are telling you.
The Building Code sets the MINIMUM standards, so any violation of the building code is a defect. But the contractors want to change the definition of a defect to "substantially complying" with the code. The contractors would have people believe no construction defect case has any legitimacy. If that were really true, the Courts have many ways to get such a case kicked out. The real reason it's rare that cases can't get kicked out is because they are legitimate.