BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                             Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
                              2011-2012 Regular Session


          SB 474 (Evans)
          As Amended May 2, 2011
          Hearing Date: May 12, 2011
          Fiscal: No
          Urgency: No
          TW   
                    

                                       SUBJECT
                                           
                    Commercial Construction Contracts:  Indemnity

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          This bill would make void and unenforceable commercial 
          construction agreements that require a promisor to indemnify, 
          release, hold harmless, insure, or defend a promisee against the 
          actual or claimed liability, damage, or expense arising, in 
          whole or in part, from the negligence, willful misconduct, 
          defective design, violation of law, or other fault of the 
          promisee or the promisee's agents, employees, independent 
          contractors, subcontractors, or representatives, except as 
          specified.  This bill also would make void and unenforceable 
          contract provisions requiring the purchase of additional insured 
          coverage, or any coverage endorsement or provision within an 
          insurance policy providing additional insurance coverage to the 
          extent it requires coverage that is prohibited under this bill.

                                      BACKGROUND  

          Since 1967, construction contracts requiring a contractor to 
          indemnify another for the other's sole negligence or willful 
          misconduct resulting in construction defects or liability for 
          damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to 
          property, or any other loss, damage or expense are void and 
          unenforceable as a matter of public policy.  Various other 
          states also have enacted prohibitions on indemnity provisions in 
          order to restrict liability shifting from the at-fault party to 
          a non-fault party and these statutes range from restrictions on 
          shifting liability for sole negligence to restrictions 
          maintaining comparative negligence standards.  
                                                                (more)



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 2 of ?




          Construction contracts which require indemnity to a party, which 
          may be found to be wholly or partially at-fault, vary in 
          degrees.  Type I indemnity agreements require one party, the 
          indemnitor (in this case, a subcontractor), to indemnify another 
          party, the indemnitee (a general contractor or project owner), 
          in the event a claim arises from a construction project and 
          regardless of whether the damage was the result of the 
          indemnitee's sole negligence or willful misconduct.  Type II 
          indemnity agreements require the indemnitor to indemnify the 
          indemnitee in the event the damage was the result of the 
          indemnitee's passive negligence.  Type III indemnity agreements 
          require indemnity only if the indemnitee was not actively or 
          passively negligent.

          Along with contractual indemnity provisions, existing law 
          provides "that an indemnity against claims, or demands, or 
          liability, expressly, or in other equivalent terms, embraces the 
          costs of defense against such claims, demands, or liability 
          incurred in good faith, and in the exercise of a reasonable 
          discretion."  (Civ. Code Sec. 2778.)  Accordingly, an agreement 
          to provide a duty to defend the promisee from claims arising 
          from the construction project may be express or inherent and may 
          require a party that is not at fault to defend a party that is 
          at fault in claims arising from the construction project.  

          In 2007 and 2008, the Legislature recognized a disparity between 
          residential builders, owners, general contractors, and 
          subcontractors with respect to indemnity obligations between 
          these parties.  Accordingly, the Legislature enacted 
          restrictions on residential construction indemnity agreements 
          under SB 138 (Calderon, Ch. 32, Stats. 2007) and AB 2738 (Jones, 
          Ch. 467, Stats. 2008) as a matter of public policy in order to 
          protect non-fault parties from being held liable for the conduct 
          of at-fault parties.  However, these restrictions do not apply 
          in the commercial context.

          This bill, sponsored by the California Association of Sheet 
          Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, 
          the California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating 
          and Piping Industry, the Concrete Contractors Association, the 
          Crane Owners Association, and the California Chapters of the 
          National Electrical Contractors Association, would, except in 
          certain instances, place restrictions on commercial construction 
          agreements, and insurance provisions associated therewith, that 
          require a promisor to indemnify, release, hold harmless, insure, 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 3 of ?



          or defend another person against the actual or claimed 
          liability, damage, or expense arising, in whole or in part, from 
          the negligence, willful misconduct, defective design, violation 
          of law, or other fault of that person or that person's agents, 
          employees, independent contractors, subcontractors, or 
          representatives.  This bill would thus provide that contract and 
          insurance requirements that shift indemnity away from at-fault 
          parties to non-fault parties would be void and unenforceable.  

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  defines "indemnity" as a contract by which one 
          engages to save another from a legal consequence of the conduct 
          of one of the parties, or of some other person.  (Civ. Code Sec. 
          2772.)

           Existing law  provides that an agreement to indemnify against the 
          acts of a certain person, applies not only to his acts and their 
          consequences, but also to those of his agents.  (Civ. Code Sec. 
          2775.)
           Existing law  provides that, among other things, in the 
          interpretation of a contract of indemnity and unless a contrary 
          intention appears:
                 upon an indemnity against liability, expressly, or in 
               other equivalent terms, the person indemnified is entitled 
               to recover upon becoming liable;
                 an indemnity against claims, or demands, or liability, 
               expressly, or in other equivalent terms, embraces the costs 
               of defense against such claims, demands, or liability 
               incurred in good faith, and in the exercise of a reasonable 
               discretion; and
                 the person indemnifying is bound, on request of the 
               person indemnified, to defend actions or proceedings 
               brought against the latter in respect to the matters 
               embraced by the indemnity, but the person indemnified has 
               the right to conduct such defenses, if he chooses to do so. 
                (Civ. Code Sec. 2778.)

           Existing case law  interprets the above-described provisions to 
          provide that, unless otherwise provided, a duty to defend arises 
          out of an indemnity obligation as soon as the litigation 
          commences, and regardless of whether the indemnitor (the person 
          indemnifying) is ultimately found negligent.  (Crawford v. 
          Weather Shield (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541.) 
           
          Existing law  provides that where one, at the request of another, 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 4 of ?



          engages to answer in damages, whether liquidated or 
          unliquidated, for any violation of duty on the part of the 
          latter, he is entitled to be reimbursed in the same manner as a 
          surety, for whatever he may pay.  (Civ. Code Sec. 2779.)
           
          Existing law  provides, except as specified, that provisions, 
          clauses, covenants, or agreements contained in, collateral to, 
          or affecting any construction contract and that purport to 
          indemnify the promisee against liability for damages for death 
          or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or any other 
          loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or 
          willful misconduct of the promisee or the promisee's agents, 
          servants, or independent contractors who are directly 
          responsible to the promisee, or for defects in design furnished 
          by those persons, are against public policy and are void and 
          unenforceable.  Existing law provides that this section does not 
          affect the validity of any insurance contract, workers' 
          compensation, or agreement issued by an admitted insurer as 
          defined by the Insurance Code.  (Civ. Code Sec. 2782(a).)

           Existing law  provides, except as specified, that provisions, 
          clauses, covenants, or agreements contained in, collateral to, 
          or affecting any construction contract with a public agency that 
          purport to impose on the contractor, or relieve the public 
          agency from, liability for the active negligence of the public 
          agency are void and unenforceable.  (Civ. Code Sec. 2782(b).)

           Existing law  provides separate indemnity and duty to defend 
          restrictions and requirements regarding residential construction 
          contracts.  (Civ. Code Sec. 2782(c)-(e).)

           Existing law  provides that a builder, general contractor, or 
          subcontractor shall have the right to seek equitable indemnity 
          for any claim governed by Civil Code Section 2782.  (Civ. Code 
          Sec. 2782(f).)

           Existing law  provides that Civil Code Section 2782 does not 
          limit, restrict, or prohibit the right of a builder, general 
          contractor, or subcontractor to seek equitable indemnity against 
          any supplier, design professional, or product manufacturer.  
          (Civ. Code Sec. 2782(g).)

           Existing law  provides that Section 2782 does not prevent a party 
          to a construction contract and the owner or other party for 
          whose account the construction contract is being performed from 
          negotiating and expressly agreeing with respect to the 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 5 of ?



          allocation, release, liquidation, exclusion, or limitation as 
          between the parties of any liability for design defects or 
          liability of the promisee to the promisor arising out of or 
          relating to the construction contract.  (Civ. Code Sec. 2782.5.)

           Existing law  defines "construction contract" and "design 
          defect," as specified.  (Civ. Code Secs. 2783 and 2784.)

           This bill  would provide that the provisions under Section 
          2782(a) (see page 3, above) would apply only to contracts 
          executed before January 1, 2012, and the provisions under this 
          bill would apply to contracts executed after that date, except 
          as specified.

           This bill  would provide that provisions, clauses, covenants, or 
          agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting a contract 
          or agreement, with exceptions, whether executed in this state or 
          without, for the design, construction, alteration, renovation, 
          repair, or maintenance of a building, structure, highway, road, 
          bridge, water line, sewer line, oil line, gas line, 
          appurtenance, or other improvement to public or private real 
          property located in the state, including any erection, moving, 
          lifting, demolition, or excavation that requires a promisor to 
          indemnify, release, hold harmless, insure, or defend another 
          person against actual or claimed liability, damage, or expense 
          arising, in whole or in part, from the negligence, willful 
          misconduct, defective design, violation of law, or other fault 
          of that person or that person's agents, employees, independent 
          contractors, subcontractors, or representatives are against 
          public policy and are void and unenforceable.

           This bill  would provide that a provision in a contract that 
          requires the purchase of additional insured coverage, or any 
          coverage endorsement or provision within an insurance policy 
          providing additional insured coverage, primary or 
          noncontributing coverage or waivers, is void and unenforceable 
          to the extent that it requires or provides coverage the scope of 
          which is prohibited under this bill for an agreement to 
          indemnify, hold harmless, or defend.

           This bill  would exempt from its provisions the following: 
          (1) contracts for residential construction, as used in Title 7 
          (commencing with Section 895) of Part 2 of Division 2;
          (2) any wrap-up insurance policy or program, except as provided 
          by this section;
          (3) a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 6 of ?



          exists independently of an indemnity obligation;
          (4) a provision in a construction contract that requires the 
          promisor to purchase or maintain insurance covering the acts or 
          omissions of the promisor;
          (5) indemnity provisions contained in loan and financing 
          documents, other than construction contracts to which the 
          contractor and a contracting project owner's lender are parties;
          (6) general agreements of indemnity required by sureties as a 
          condition of execution of bonds for construction contracts;
          (7) the benefits and protections provided by the workers' 
          compensation laws; and
          (8) the benefits or protections provided by the governmental 
          immunity laws.

           This bill  also would exempt from its provisions agreements in 
          construction contracts that require a promisor to purchase the 
          following:
          (1) owners and contractors protective liability insurance; 
          (2) railroad protective liability insurance;
          (3) contractors all-risk insurance; and
          (4) builders all-risk or named perils property insurance.

           This bill  would apply to liability under a construction contract 
          entered into on or after January 1, 2012.

           This bill  would provide that, notwithstanding any choice-of-law 
          rules that would apply the laws of another jurisdiction, the law 
          of California shall apply to every contract to which this bill 
          applies.

           This bill  would provide that any waiver of the provisions of 
          this bill is contrary to public policy and is void and 
          unenforceable.

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.  Stated need for the bill  
          
          The author writes:
          
            SB 474 would protect construction parties from bearing 
            liability for the negligence or design defects of other 
            parties engaged in the construction project by making 
            risk-shifting contract clauses unenforceable.  For this 
            purpose, SB 474 would provide that indemnity and duty to 
            defend clauses contained in all construction and insurance 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 7 of ?



            contracts would be unenforceable to the extent that the 
            clauses required the non-fault party to be responsible for 
            claims arising from the negligence or fault of another 
            contracting party.

          California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning 
          Contractors' National Association, a sponsor of this bill, 
          writes:
          
            C]ontractual clauses known as "Type 1 indemnity" allow a 
            general contractor who is ninety-nine percent at-fault for an 
            injury or damage to shift ALL of the liability and 
            responsibility for defense to a subcontractor who is only one 
            percent at-fault (or to a subcontractor who has no liability 
            for the circumstances surrounding the matter, but whose work 
            is peripherally connected to an underlying accident).  
            Emerging and small businesses simply cannot grow or survive in 
            an environment where they are required to pay for the 
            accidents and mistakes created by other larger companies.

            Additionally, these contract provisions are leading to a 
            decline in jobsite safety.  General contractors are the 
            "controlling employer" and have the overall responsibility to 
            keep construction jobsites safe.  Without liability reform 
            legislation for commercial and industrial construction 
            contracts, they lack incentive to ensure that all safety 
            measures are in place and enforced because they are not 
            financially responsible for any accidents.

          The sponsors of this bill have numerous examples of the harmful 
          effects of these indemnity provisions.  The following are a few 
          of these examples:

                 Project owner made a claim for construction defects 
               against the general contractor; the subcontractor's insurer 
               contributed $20,000 to remove the subcontractor from the 
               lawsuit, even though the subcontractor had not contributed 
               to the construction defect;
                 Subcontractor providing HVAC installation was 
               cross-claimed into a complaint regarding water leaks on the 
               exterior of a building; the total amount paid by the 
               subcontractor was $500,000 to settle the claim even though 
               the subcontractor was not at-fault;
                 Subcontractor paid $500,000 toward settlement even 
               though the construction defects were not the fault of the 
               subcontractor; and
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 8 of ?



                 Subcontractor paid $11,000,000 in a personal injury 
               action due to the indemnity provisions in the subcontract, 
               even though the subcontractor was deemed not at fault for 
               the injury; this payout has resulted in the subcontractor 
               being deemed a high risk insured and, as a result, the 
               subcontractor's insurance premiums have increased.

          These subcontractors report that, due to increased costs and 
          insurance premiums related to these payouts for construction 
          defects and injuries resulting from the construction project, 
          they are having difficulty providing competitive bidding on 
          projects and growing their businesses.
            
          2.  Indemnity agreements  

          This bill would impose restrictions on commercial construction 
          agreements, and insurance provisions associated therewith, that 
          require a promisor to indemnify, release, hold harmless, or 
          insure another person against the actual or claimed liability, 
          damage, or expense arising, in whole or in part, from the 
          negligence, willful misconduct, defective design, violation of 
          law, or other fault of that person or that person's agents, 
          employees, independent contractors, subcontractors, or 
          representatives.  This bill contains various exceptions, as 
          specified.  Existing law prohibits construction contract 
          indemnity agreements which shift the burden of liability to a 
          non-fault party when the at-fault party is solely negligent.  
          (Civ. Code Sec. 2782(a).)  Existing law restricts the shifting 
          of liability in residential construction projects.  (Civ. Code 
          Sec. 2782(c)-(e).)

          Proponents of this bill argue that, although California has an 
          anti-indemnity law that prohibits a contract requiring a 
          subcontractor to be liable for claims arising from the sole 
          negligence or willful misconduct by a project owner or the 
          general contractor, there is no prohibition on commercial 
          construction insurance contracts requiring such indemnity 
          provisions.  Accordingly, project owners and general contractors 
          now require subcontractors to carry insurance to provide 
          indemnity and defense for claims against the project owner or 
          general contractor resulting from claims associated with the 
          project owner or general contractor's sole negligence.  Further, 
          the proponents argue that even if the project owner or general 
          contractor are not solely negligent, but 99 percent negligent, 
          the subcontractor should not have to bear the entire burden of 
          liability when the subcontractor was partially responsible, if 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 9 of ?



          at all.  Under current commercial construction contracts and 
          insurance policies, the subcontractor could have to indemnify 
          and defend claims arising out of partial negligence on the part 
          of the project owner or general contractor and partial 
          negligence on the part of another subcontractor, regardless of 
          the lack of fault on the part of the indemnifying subcontractor.

          The author argues that this bill primarily is aimed at 
          prohibiting subcontractor liability in Type I commercial 
          construction indemnity agreements.   In the case where the 
          indemnitor is the subcontractor and the indemnitee is the 
          general contractor/projector owner, Type I indemnity agreements 
          require the subcontractor to indemnify the general 
          contractor/project owner in the event a claim arises from a 
          construction project and regardless of whether the damage was 
          the result of the general contractor's/project owner's sole 
          negligence or willful misconduct.  Type II indemnity agreements 
          require the subcontractor to indemnify the general 
          contractor/project owner in the event the damage was the result 
          of the general contractor's/project owner's passive negligence.  
          Type III indemnity agreements require indemnity only if the 
          general contractor/project owner was not actively or passively 
          negligent.

          Proponents of this bill argue that after the court's holding in 
          Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 
          541, general contractors are requiring subcontractors to execute 
          sweeping indemnity agreements which effectively make the 
          subcontractor the project insurer.  In Crawford, the 
          subcontractor was contractually required to indemnify a general 
          contractor against all claims for damages arising out of the 
          subcontractor's work if the subcontractor was found negligent.  
          The Crawford trial court found no negligence by the 
          subcontractor so no indemnification was owed to the general 
          contractor.  (Id. at pg. 549.)  The Crawford court noted that 
          "indemnity agreements resemble liability insurance policies, 
          rules for interpreting the two classes of contracts do differ 
          significantly.  Ambiguities in a policy of insurance are 
          construed against the insurer, who generally drafted the policy, 
          and who has received premiums to provide the agreed protection.  
          In noninsurance contexts, however, it is the indemnitee who may 
          often have the superior bargaining power, and who may use this 
          power unfairly to shift to another a disproportionate share of 
          the financial consequences of its own legal fault."  (Id. at pg. 
          552; citations omitted; emphasis in original.)  The proponents 
          argue that it is this superior bargaining power on the part of 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 10 of ?



          the project owners and general contractors that demonstrate the 
          unconscionability of Type I indemnification agreements.

          Since the ruling in Crawford, general contractors now 
          increasingly require contracts to contain explicit language 
          requiring the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor 
          for any and all active or passive negligence on the part of the 
          general contractor, regardless of the subcontractor's lack of 
          fault for damages.  Proponents argue that, especially after the 
          recent fiscal crisis, subcontractors and their insurers are 
          unfairly burdened by these indemnity provisions.  Additionally, 
                                                             the sponsors argue that "to the extent a party is not 
          responsible for their actions, they become more prone to making 
          mistakes and/or cause accidents.  The equitable distribution of 
          risk on a construction project would naturally increase safety 
          and reduce costs from claims associated with defects and 
          mistakes.  Accordingly, reduced costs would increase available 
          capital for more jobs and projects."

          Courts have held that parties are free to negotiate contractual 
          provisions and assign responsibilities as they see fit, subject 
          to public policy.  (Crawford at pg. 551.)  However, the 
          proponents argue that the indemnity requirements of general 
          contractors imposed upon subcontractors, who are arguably the 
          weaker contracting party, amount to contracts of adhesion.  If 
          the subcontractor wants the job, especially in this difficult 
          financial climate, the subcontractor must enter into indemnity 
          agreements.  This bill, in conforming to the Legislature's 
          history of public policy to hold at-fault parties responsible, 
          would provide that contract and insurance requirements shifting 
          indemnity away from at-fault parties to non-fault parties would 
          be void and unenforceable.  This bill would maintain the 
          exceptions to indemnity prohibitions that exist under current 
          law for sole negligence indemnity provisions.

          3.  Duty to defend
           
          Except in specified instances, this bill would provide 
          restrictions on commercial construction agreements, and 
          insurance provisions associated therewith, that require a 
          promisor to defend another person against the actual or claimed 
          liability, damage, or expense arising, in whole or in part, from 
          the negligence, willful misconduct, defective design, violation 
          of law, or other fault of that person or that person's agents, 
          employees, independent contractors, subcontractors, or 
          representatives.  Existing law provides that, among other 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 11 of ?



          things, in the interpretation of a contract of indemnity and 
          unless a contrary intention appears, a person indemnifying 
          another is bound, on request of the person indemnified, to 
          defend actions or proceedings brought against the latter in 
          respect to the matters embraced by the indemnity, but the person 
          indemnified has the right to conduct such defenses, if he 
          chooses to do so.  (Civ. Code Sec. 2778(4).)  

          Courts have held that when a subcontractor contractually agrees 
          to indemnify a general contractor or project owner against all 
          claims, unless expressly provided otherwise, the inherent or 
          express duty to defend in the contract will apply regardless of 
          whether the subcontractor was not at fault for the damages.  
          (Crawford at pgs. 555, 568.)  Proponents of this bill argue that 
          the duty to defend by the subcontractors has become a huge 
          financial burden for subcontractors which may not bear any 
          responsibility for the claimed damages.  As noted in Comment 2, 
          requiring subcontractors to execute contracts containing an 
          express or implied duty to defend has the effect of 
          unconscionability because the subcontractor has the least amount 
          of power to negotiate these terms.  This bill would make such 
          duty to defend agreements void and unenforceable.

          4.     Opponents' concerns
           
          Various opponents have raised concerns with this bill as 
          described below.

              a.   General contractors and project owners  
           
             General contractor and project owners groups have expressed 
            opposition to this bill for various reasons, the most 
            significant of which is the claim that this bill, they argue, 
            would eliminate an immediate obligation to provide a unified 
            defense.  Accordingly, when a claim is presented against a 
            project owner or general contractor, they argue that the 
            construction project could come to a standstill while the 
            parties discover who was at fault for the claimed damages.  
            Under existing law, a project owner or general contractor can 
            require a subcontractor (without knowledge as to whether this 
            subcontractor is responsible in any way for the claimed 
            damages) to immediately defend the claim.  

            Proponents of this bill argue that the party which oversees 
            the construction project (the general contractor or project 
            owner) is in the best position to determine which parties have 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 12 of ?



            the highest likelihood of involvement in the claim.  
            Accordingly, the general contractor or project owner is the 
            proper party to immediately defend the claim while liability 
            issues are sorted out.  Given the complexity of this issue, 
            the author has committed to working with general contractor 
            and project owner stakeholders to find a fair and reasonable 
            solution.
              b.   Public entities  
           
             Various public entities have expressed opposition to this 
            bill, arguing that it will result in shifting liability from 
            those who control the risk on a project to the public entity, 
            and ultimately the taxpayer.  Existing law provides, with 
            exceptions, that provisions, clauses, covenants, or agreements 
            contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction 
            contract with a public agency that purport to impose on the 
            contractor, or relieve the public agency from, liability for 
            the active negligence of the public agency are void and 
            unenforceable.  (Civ. Code Sec. 2782(b).)  

            However, public entities have found a way around this ban on 
            Type I indemnity clauses by hiring a "construction manager," 
            who is oftentimes a general contractor, which enters into a 
            contract with a public entity, at the general contractor's 
            risk.  The general contractor guarantees a price to the public 
            entity, then requires all subcontractors to execute 
            subcontracts which include indemnity agreements in favor of 
            the general contractor and project owner should a claim be 
            made arising out of the construction project.  In these 
            situations, called "GC at risk" contracts, the subcontractors 
            are unable to propose any changes to the terms of these 
            contracts and the subcontractor is disqualified or terminated 
            for the failure to execute the subcontract.  Accordingly, 
            these subcontracts effectively are non-negotiable.

            The author's office and committee staff have engaged in 
            numerous communications with the public entity opponents to 
            address their concerns.  The author's office indicates that 
            nothing in this bill is intended to shift liability back on to 
            the public entities.  The author has committed to working with 
            public entity opponents to address this concern, and these 
            opponents have indicated their willingness to continue to work 
            with the author on this issue.  
            

           Support  :  Air Conditioning Sheet Metal Association; 
                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 13 of ?



          Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Contractors Association; 
          American Subcontractors Association - California; Associated 
          Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors; Bragg Crane & Rigging Co.; 
          California Chapter of the American Fence Association; California 
          Crane & Rigging, LLC; California Fence Contractors' Association; 
          California Landscape & Irrigation Council; California Landscape 
          Contractors Association; California Plumbing and Mechanical 
          Contractors Association; California State Association of 
          Electrical Workers; California State Pipe Trades Council; 
          California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers; Champion 
          Crane Rental, Inc.; Crane Rental Service, Inc.; Engineering 
          Contractors' Association; Flasher/Barricade Association; Hill 
          Crane Service, Inc.; Mobile Crane Operators Group of Southern 
          California; Mr. Crane, Inc.; Northern California Mechanical 
          Contractors Association; Peninsula Crane & Rigging; Reliable 
          Crane Rigging; Rigging International; Specialty Crane & Rigging; 
          State Building and Construction Trades Council of California; 
          Union Roofing Contractors Association; Western States Council of 
          Sheet Metal Workers

           Opposition  :  Associated General Contractors; Association of 
          California School Administrators; Building Owners and Managers 
          Association of California; California Apartment Association; 
          California Business Properties Association; California Building 
          Industry Association; California Hotel & Lodging Association; 
          California Retailers Association; California Special Districts 
          Association; California State Association of Counties; City and 
          County of San Francisco; Civil Justice Association of 
          California; Coalition for Adequate School Housing; Construction 
          Employers Association; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; 
          International Conference of Shopping Centers; League of 
          California Cities; National Association of Industrial Office 
          Properties; Orange County Business Council; Regional Council of 
          Rural Counties; Riverside County Office of the Superintendent; 
          San Diego Downtown Partnership; Small School Districts' 
          Association; Urban Counties Caucus

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  California Association of Sheet Metal and Air 
          Conditioning Contractors' National Association; California 
          Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping 
          Industry; Concrete Contractors Association; Crane Owners 
          Association; California Chapters of the National Electrical 
          Contractors Association

                                                                      



          SB 474 (Evans)
          Page 14 of ?



           Related Pending Legislation  :  None Known

           Prior Legislation  :  See Background.

                                   **************