Under current law, the commissioner of insurance (commissioner) is authorized to conduct financial examinations and market conduct examinations of companies engaged in the insurance business in Colorado. Financial examinations, which the commissioner conducts on every company domiciled in Colorado once every 5 years, are intended to ensure that regulated insurance companies have proper corporate governance and internal controls and are able to pay claims. Market conduct examinations are intended to ensure that regulated insurance companies are complying with applicable laws and rules and that policyholders, providers, and beneficiaries are treated equitably. Statutes pertaining to both financial examinations and market conduct examinations are intertwined and, in some cases, overlap and conflict. Because of the repeal and relocation of market conduct provisions under sections 2 through 10 of the bill, section 1 of the bill consolidates and relocates provisions that apply generally to the commissioner and the division of insurance (division) regarding confidential treatment of documents the commissioner obtains during an investigation, the subpoena powers of the division, and the commissioner's ability to contract with experts in conducting an investigation. Sections 2 through 10 separate the market conduct examination provisions from the financial examination provisions, repealing and relocating the market conduct examination provisions to a separate part and more clearly delineating the scope and functions of the 2 distinct types of examinations conducted by the commissioner. With regard to market conduct reviews, section 10 also uses the term 'market conduct surveillance' and specifies the types of activities that includes, such as market analysis, interrogatories, and market conduct examinations. Sections 11 through 16 make conforming amendments based on the repeal and relocation of the market conduct examination provisions.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Section 1 of the bill adds a legislative declaration. Section 4 of the bill modifies the 'Colorado Open Records Act' (CORA) by creating new procedures governing the inspection of public records that are stored as structured data. Section 2 defines key terms including 'structured data', which the bill defines as digital data that is stored in a fixed field within a record or file that is capable of being automatically read, processed, or manipulated by a computer. Section 2 of the bill provides a definition of the term 'infrastructure security data'. Section 2 also specifies that, for purpose of the definition of 'public records in CORA, the terms 'state' and 'agency' include the judicial department of state government. If the custodian has made the requested records publicly available in a structured data format, section 3 of the bill allows the custodian to satisfy the request by redirecting the requester, in writing and in detail, to the location of the records. If public records are stored as structured data, section 4 requires the custodian of the public records to provide an accurate copy of the public records in a structured data format when requested. If public records are not stored as structured data but are stored in an electronic or digital form and are searchable in their native format, the custodian is required to provide a copy of the public records in a format that is searchable when requested. Section 4 specifies the circumstances that exempt the custodian from having to produce records in a searchable or structured data format. If a custodian is not able to comply with a request to produce public records that are subject to disclosure in a requested format, the custodian is required to produce the records in an alternate format or issue a denial and to provide a written declaration attesting to the reasons the custodian is not able to produce the records in the requested format. If a court subsequently rules the custodian should have provided the data in the requested format attorney fees may be awarded only if the custodian's action was arbitrary or capricious. Nothing in the bill requires a custodian to produce records in their native format or to release metadata. When a custodian produces records in a searchable or structured format, the choice of format is in the sole discretion of the custodian. Section 4 also clarifies that the bill does not relieve or mitigate the obligations of a custodian to produce records in a format accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with Title II of the federal 'Americans with Disabilities Act', and other federal or state laws. Section 5 of the bill adds as an additional ground that a custodian has for disallowing the inspection of public records that the inspection seeks access to infrastructure security data. This section of the bill also permits the custodian to deny the right of inspection of the following records, unless otherwise provided by law, on the ground that disclosure to the applicant would be contrary to the public interest: Software programs; network and systems architectural designs; source code; source documentation; information in tangible or intangible form relating to released and unreleased software or hardware, database design structures, database schema and architecture, security structures and architecture, and data stored in support structures; agency original design ideas; nonpublic business policies and practices relating to software development and use; and the terms and conditions of any actual or proposed license agreement or other agreement concerning the products and licensing negotiations. The bill permits any public employee, or former public employee, of any branch or level of government, to request that his or her home address, personal telephone number, or other similar personal identifying or location information be withheld from the production of any public records produced in a structured data or searchable format by presenting to any custodian of such public records a written declaration signed by the employee attesting that disclosure of the personal identifying or location information poses a credible risk to the health, welfare, safety, or security of the employee or to any member of the employee's family or household. Upon receipt of a signed declaration meeting the bill's requirements or a declaration containing the same information that has been executed by a federal law enforcement agency, POST certified law enforcement official, or a judicial officer, the custodian of any public records produced in a structured data or searchable format is required to either deny the inspection of such public records or redact from any such public records provided to any requester in a structured data or searchable format the employee's personal identifying or location information. The bill prohibits any claim of any kind from being asserted against either any records custodian or any agency of government that is premised on the failure of the custodian or the agency to comply with these requirements of the bill. If the custodian denies access to any record on the grounds that the record contains infrastructure security data, the bill requires the custodian to forthwith furnish the applicant with a written statement specifying why the requested record is infrastructure security data. At the same time, the custodian is also required to provide copies of the written statement to the attorney general of the state and also to the division of homeland security and emergency management within the department of public safety. The applicant may apply to state district court for a determination that the requested record is in fact a public record and does not satisfy the definition of infrastructure security data. In such legal action, the applicant bears the burden of proof. Section 5 also expands the grounds permitting the filing of a civil action seeking inspection of a public record to include an allegation of a violation of the digital format provisions in the bill or a violation of record transmission provisions specified in CORA. This section also specifies that altering an existing record, or excising fields of information, to remove information that the custodian is required or allowed to withhold does not constitute the creation of a new public record. Such alteration or excision may be subject to a research and retrieval fee or a fee for the programming of data as allowed under existing provisions of CORA. Section 6 modifies CORA provisions governing the copy, printout, or photograph of a public record and the imposition of a research and retrieval fee. Among these modifications: The bill deletes existing statutory language permitting the custodian to charge the same fee for services rendered in supervising the copying, printing out, or photographing of a public record as the custodian may charge for furnishing a copy, printout, or photograph; The bill replaces a reference in the statute to the phrase 'manipulation of data' with the phrase 'programming, coding, or custom search queries so as to convert a record into a structured data or searchable format'; In connection with determining the amount of the fee for a paper or electronic copy of a public record, the bill specifies that, if a custodian performs programming, coding, or custom search queries to create a public record, the fee for a paper or electronic copy of that record may be based on recovery of the actual or incremental costs of performing the programming, coding, or custom search queries, together with a reasonable portion of the costs associated with building and maintaining the information systems; and When a person makes a request to inspect or make copies or images of original public records, the bill permits the custodian to charge a fee for the time required for the custodian to supervise the handling of the records, when such supervision is necessary to protect the integrity or security of the original records. Section 7 repeals the existing criminal misdemeanor offense and penalty for a willful and knowing violation of CORA. Section 8 of the bill appropriates $50,810 to the judicial department for the 2017-18 state fiscal year from the general fund. This section of the bill also appropriates $855 to the department of law for the 2017-18 state fiscal year. This latter appropriation is from reappropriated funds received from the office of the state public defender in the judicial department. To implement the bill, the department of law is permitted to use this appropriation to provide legal services for the office of the state public defender in the judicial department.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
The bill declares that the regulation of automated driving systems is a matter of statewide concern, and, therefore, local authorities are prohibited from setting different standards for these systems than for human drivers. The use of automated driving systems is authorized if the system is capable of conforming to every state and federal law applying to driving. If not, a person testing a system is required to obtain approval from the Colorado state patrol and the Colorado department of transportation. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Under current, law a driver who fails to exhibit due care and caution when approaching or passing a stationary emergency vehicle or towing carrier vehicle commits careless driving, which is a class A traffic offense. The bill adds stationary public utility service vehicles to the statute. The bill increases the penalty to a class 1 misdemeanor if the driver's actions are the proximate cause of bodily injury to another person and to a class 6 felony if the actions are the proximate cause of the death of another person. The short title of the bill is the 'Move Over for Cody Act'. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
The public utilities commission (commission) in the department of regulatory agencies (department) regulates motor carriers through the issuance of permits. The bill streamlines the commission's enforcement of motor carrier permits as follows: Section 2 of the bill clarifies language concerning the imposition of civil penalties for violations of motor carrier regulations, including the civil penalties applicable for subsequent violations. Section 2 also relieves the commission of the obligation to prove that a violation was intentional. Section 3 creates a legal services offset fund (fund) to supplement the money appropriated to the department for legal representation of commission staff by the department of law in commission matters concerning the enforcement of motor carrier regulations. Section 3 requires that the state treasurer transfer any money in excess of $250,000 in the fund to the general fund and sets an alternative maximum reserve for the fund, distinct from the maximum reserve generally applicable to cash funds, of $250,000. Section 1 requires the commission to transfer all penalties collected for violations of motor carrier regulations to the fund. Sections 4, 5, and 6 clarify that a permittee's motor carrier permit is immediately revoked for failure to pay a civil penalty. These sections apply to permittees that are motor carriers of passengers, motor carriers of towed motor vehicles, and motor carriers of household goods, respectively.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Sunset Process - Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. The bill implements the recommendations of the sunset review and report on the Colorado board of veterans affairs by eliminating the repeal date of the board and extending the board indefinitely.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Under current law, if a tenant notifies his or her landlord in writing that he or she is the victim of domestic violence or domestic abuse and provides to the landlord evidence in the form of a police report written within the prior 60 days or a valid protection order, and the tenant seeks to vacate the premises due to fear of imminent danger for self or children, then the tenant may terminate the rental agreement or lease and vacate the premises with minimal remaining obligations. The bill extends this privilege to victims of unlawful sexual behavior and stalking. The bill also provides that a statement from an application assistant designated by the address confidentiality program or, in the case of a victim of unlawful sexual behavior, from a medical professional, confirming the tenant's victim status is a third means of presenting evidence to the landlord. If a tenant to a residential rental agreement or lease agreement notifies the landlord that the tenant is a victim of unlawful sexual behavior, stalking, domestic violence, or domestic abuse, the landlord shall not disclose such fact to any person except with the consent of the victim or as the landlord may be required to do so by law. If a tenant to a residential rental agreement or lease agreement terminates his or her lease pursuant to this section because he or she is a victim of unlawful sexual behavior, stalking, domestic violence, or domestic abuse, and the tenant provides the landlord with a new address, the landlord shall not disclose such address to any person except with the consent of the victim or as the landlord may be required to do so by law. Under current law, a dangerous or uninhabitable condition in a rented property does not constitute a breach of the warranty of habitability if the condition is caused by the misconduct of the tenant, a member of the tenant's household, a guest or invitee of the tenant, or a person under the tenant's direction or control. However, such a condition is not misconduct by a victim of domestic violence or domestic abuse if the condition is the result of domestic violence or domestic abuse and the landlord has been given written notice and evidence of domestic violence or domestic abuse. The bill adds language to provide the same protection for tenants who are victims of unlawful sexual behavior or stalking. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Sunset Process - Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill implements the recommendations of the sunset review and report on the continuation of the 'Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act' (Act) by: Continuing the Act through 2028; Defining a 'debt buyer' as a person who engages in the business of purchasing debt for collection purposes; Creating requirements for debt collectors and collection agencies that bring legal actions on debts owned; Defining what is expected of a collection agency that purchases, sells, or attempts to collect on a purchased debt; Clarifying that the statute of limitations for private actions and actions by the administrator of the Act is 2 years; Repealing the collection agency board; and Requiring the administrator of the 'Uniform Consumer Credit Code' to prepare a report concerning the Act.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Currently, the penalty for text messaging while driving is a $50 fine and one point assessed against the violator's driver's license for a first offense and a $100 fine and one point assessed against the violator's driver's license for a second or subsequent offense. The bill increases the penalty to a $300 fine and 4 points for each offense. A driver may not be cited for text messaging while driving unless the driver was also operating the motor vehicle in a careless and imprudent manner. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Sunset Process - Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee. Sections 1 through 4 of the bill continue the division of real estate, the real estate commission, and the regulation of real estate brokers and subdivision developers for 9 years, until 2026. Section 5 directs the real estate commission (commission) to establish, by rule, the number of transactions that a broker must have completed before becoming an employing broker. Section 10 adds to the current provisions on referral fees to require that referral fee agreements conform to the requirements of both state and federal law. Sections 8 and 11 through 18 consolidate the various cash funds used for several licensing functions and programs administered by the division of real estate into a single cash fund. Section 7 makes broker licenses expire uniformly on December 31 rather than requiring licensees to apply for renewal at various times throughout the year on their individual anniversary dates. Section 9 defines 'conviction' to include deferred judgments and deferred sentences, in provisions listing factors the commission may consider when determining whether to discipline a licensee. Section 6 modifies the composition of the commission to require that one of the 3 broker members be a broker with experience in property management.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
Sunset Process - Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee. The bill implements the recommendations of the department of regulatory agencies' sunset review and report on the functions of the division of insurance (division) by: Continuing the functions of the division for 13 years, until 2030 ( sections 1 and 2 of the bill); Establishing a separate sunset date for the regulation of preneed funeral contracts in 2022 ( section 5 ); Reassigning certain duties related to health maintenance organizations from the executive director of the department of public health and environment to the commissioner of insurance (commissioner) ( sections 6 through 13 ); Repealing the 'Certified Capital Company Act', effective July 1, 2025 ( section 14 ); Removing the exemption of policies with more than 4 automobiles from consumer protection provisions ( section 15 ); Eliminating the requirement that an insurer authorized to transact business in Colorado file a schedule of insurance rates for required minimum coverages by July 1, 2003 ( section 16 ); Expanding the definition of 'enrollee' to include certain individuals with non-HMO or prepaid plans ( section 17 ); Revising the definition of 'participating provider' to include providers in other states that are part of the carrier's managed care network since consumers may use contracted providers in other states when Colorado insurance protections are applicable ( section 17 ); Repealing the 35% surcharge above the modified community rate that an insurance carrier is permitted to impose on small employers that previously purchased self-funded health benefit coverage or a health benefit plan that was not a small group plan ( section 18 ); Repealing the requirement for a one-time training course that was to be completed by January 1, 2009 ( section 19 ); Changing a reference to the location of the definition of health care providers from the statutes governing reimbursement to providers of health care services to refer to statutes governing the statewide managed care system ( section 20 ); and Clarifying that all bail agents licensed by the division are exempt from the private investigator licensing statute ( section 21 ). Section 3 of the bill requires fines and penalties levied on insurers to relate to the general business practices and compliance activities of insurers. Section 4 of the bill requires the division to study the compliance of preneed funeral contract sellers with Colorado law and report the findings of the study to the legislature not later than September 1, 2017.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
The bill establishes a state-level program (program) within the department of human services (department) for a check of the department's Colorado adult protective services (CAPS) data system. The CAPS check verifies whether a person is substantiated in a case of mistreatment of an at-risk adult, as defined in the bill. A person must be substantiated in a case of mistreatment of an at-risk adult, and the administrative appeals process must be concluded, before the person's name is included in a CAPS check for an employer. On and after a date stated in the bill, the bill requires certain employers at facilities or programs that serve at-risk adults to request a CAPS check prior to hiring employees who will provide direct care, as defined in the bill, to at-risk adults. The bill grants immunity from civil liability for employers who make an employment decision based upon the information obtained in the CAPS check, unless the employer knows that the information is false. The bill requires the department to promulgate rules relating to the investigation of reports of mistreatment of at-risk adults and the notification of perpetrators of the finding and of the right to administrative appeal to the department. The department shall provide training to county departments of human or social services relating to investigations, the accurate entry of documentation into CAPS, and confidentiality of information. Further, the department shall promulgate rules concerning the process and procedures for the CAPS check, including rules relating to submitting a CAPS check request, the timeline for completion of a CAPS check, the employer-paid fee for each check, department personnel granted access to CAPS, information provided to an employer as part of a CAPS check, the consequences of the improper release of the information in CAPS, and the expungement of records in CAPS. A person who improperly releases or willfully permits the release of CAPS information to persons not entitled to access to the information pursuant to the program commits a class 1 misdemeanor. The list of employers required to request a CAPS check includes: Health facilities licensed by the department of public health and environment; An adult day care facility; A community integrated health care service agency; A community-centered board or service agency; A single entry point agency; An area agency on aging; A facility operated by the department for persons with mental illness; A facility operated by the department for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities; and A veterans community living center. County departments of human or social services are required to conduct a CAPS check of adult protective services employees. The department is authorized to assess a fee for each CAPS check sufficient to cover certain expenses, including those related to the CAPS check. The bill includes conforming amendments concerning the CAPS check requirement in statutes relating to employers subject to the requirement. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)
