BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó





                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
                            2015 - 2016  Regular  Session


          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Version: April 22, 2015
          Hearing Date:  April 28, 2015
          Fiscal: Yes
          Urgency: No
          RD


                                        SUBJECT
                                           
           Engineering and land surveying:  limited liability partnerships

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          Existing law authorizes licensed engineers and land surveyors to  
          organize and operate as limited liability partnerships (LLPs),  
          subject to certain insurance liability coverage requirements, as  
          specified, until January 1, 2016. 

          This bill would extend, until January 1, 2021, existing law that  
          allows engineering and land surveying firms to form limited  
          liability partnerships (LLPs) and foreign limited liability  
          partnerships to engage in the practice of engineering and land  
          surveying. 

                                      BACKGROUND  

          In 1994, the Legislature enacted the Beverly-Killea Limited  
          Liability Company (LLC) Act, under which a foreign or domestic  
          limited liability company is prohibited from rendering  
          professional services in this state unless expressly authorized  
          under applicable provisions of law.  Professional services are  
          those services for which a license, certification, or  
          registration is required under specified statutes. 

          Beginning with the creation of limited liability partnerships  
          (LLPs) in 1995 by SB 513 (Calderon, Ch. 679, Stats. 1995),  
          however, sponsored and supported by law and accountancy firms,  
          certain licensed professionals have been able to enjoy limited  
          liability protections, with tax advantages similar to LLCs, upon  








          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 2 of ? 

          meeting specified conditions.  Generally, operation as an LLP  
          offers both liability and tax advantages by combining the  
          limited liability attributes of a corporation with the federal  
          tax advantage of operating as a general partnership.  For  
          liability purposes, partners in an LLP have no personal  
          liability for the torts of the other partners in the partnership  
          and stand to lose only the amount he or she has contributed or  
          is obligated to contribute under the terms of the partnership  
          agreement.  In a general partnership, however, the partner would  
          be jointly and severally liable with the other partners for any  
          tort of the partnership, including a tort of one of the  
          individual partners.  In both settings, the individual partner  
          who committed the wrongdoing would be personally liable for his  
          or her tort.    

          The original rationale for the exclusion of professional  
          services under the Beverly-Killea LLC Act was that service  
          providers who harm others by their misconduct, incompetence or  
          negligence should not be able to limit their liability by  
          operating as an LLC (or LLP) and thus become potentially  
          judgment-proof.

          In authorizing licensed attorney and accountant firms to form  
          LLPs, SB 513 conditioned the authorization upon a condition that  
          the LLP purchase a liability insurance policy or maintained bank  
          deposits of at least $100,000 per limited liability partner (or  
          an aggregate of not less than $500,000 for fewer than five  
          partners and not more than $5 million for all others).   
          Moreover, only partnerships with a net worth of $10 million or  
          more were allowed to become LLPs.  Subsequently, in 1998, the  
          Legislature allowed for architects to form LLPs under the same  
          conditions as accountants and attorneys, for a trial period of  
          ten years (AB 469 (Cardoza, Ch. 504, Stats. 1998)).  In 2006,  
          the sunset for architects was extended to 2012, and the  
          liability coverage requirement was increased to $1,000,000 for  
          partnerships of five or fewer licensees, and an additional  
          $100,000 per additional licensee up to a maximum of $5,000,000.   
          (AB 2914 (Leno, Ch. 426, Stats. 2006).)  In 2007, SB 414  
          (Corbett, Ch. 80, Stats. 2007) updated the liability coverage  
          requirement for accountants and attorneys.  Similarly, bills  
          that have authorized professional service providers to form LLCs  
          have also required those businesses to maintain an adequate  
          level of liability insurance.  (See Prior Legislation.)  

          Relevant to this bill, in 2003, AB 1265 (Benoit, 2003) was  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 3 of ? 

          introduced to also authorize engineers and land surveyors to  
          practice within the scope of their licensure as an LLP with the  
          same insurance liability coverage requirements as that of  
          architects.  This Committee held that bill due to concerns  
          regarding inadequate insurance coverage.  
          Subsequently, in 2010, SB 1008 (Padilla, Ch. 634, Stats. 2010)  
          was enacted to allow engineers and land surveyors to organize as  
          LLPs and required those LLPs to carry the same insurance  
          liability amounts as those required of accountants and  
          architects.  Those provisions included a sunset of January 1,  
          2016.  

          This bill would now extend the sunset for engineer and land  
          surveyor LLPs, and the requisite liability insurance provisions,  
          by an additional five years, to January 1, 2021. 
          This bill was heard in the Senate Business, Professions &  
          Economic Development Committee on April 20, 2015, and passed out  
          on a vote of 9-0. 

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  provides that a partner in a registered limited  
          liability partnership (LLP) is not liable or accountable,  
          directly or indirectly, including by way of indemnification,  
          contribution, assessment, or otherwise, for debts, obligations,  
          or liabilities of or chargeable to the partnership or another  
          partner in the partnership, whether arising in tort, contract,  
          or otherwise, that are incurred, created, or assumed by the  
          partnership while the partnership is a registered limited  
          liability partnership, by reason of being a partner or acting in  
          the conduct of the business or activities of the partnership.   
          (Corp. Code Sec. 16306(c).)

           Existing law  includes, along with the practice of architecture,  
          public accountancy, and law, the practices of engineering and  
          land surveying in the definitions of "foreign limited liability  
          partnership," "registered limited liability partnership," and  
          "professional limited liability partnership services."  (Corp.  
          Code Secs. 16100(6)(A), 16100(8)(A), 16100(14).)
           
          Existing law  requires that every registered LLP and foreign LLP  
          provide security for claims, as specified.  (Corp. Code Sec.  
          16956.)  

           Existing law  requires all LLPs, at the time of registration and  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 4 of ? 

          continuously while transacting intrastate business to provide  
          security for claims, as specified.  For claims based upon acts,  
          errors, or omissions arising out of the practice of engineering  
          or the practice of land surveying, a registered LLP or foreign  
          LLP providing engineering or land surveying services must comply  
          with one, some combination as specified, of the following:
           maintaining a policy or policies of insurance against  
            liability imposed on or against it by law for damages arising  
            out of claims as follows: 
             o    the total aggregate limit of liability under the policy  
               or policies of insurance for partnerships with five or  
               fewer licensees rendering professional services on behalf  
               of the partnership shall not be less than two million  
               dollars ($2,000,000);
             o    for partnerships with more than five licensees rendering  
               professional services on behalf of the partnership, an  
               additional one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) of  
               liability coverage shall be obtained for each additional  
               licensee; 
             o    however, the total aggregate limit of liability under  
               the policy or policies of insurance is not required to  
               exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000); or
           in lieu of insurance coverage as specified above, maintaining  
            in trust or bank escrow, cash, bank certificates of deposit,  
            United States Treasury obligations, bank letters of credit, or  
            bonds of insurance or surety companies as security for payment  
            of liabilities imposed by law for damages arising out of all  
            claims as follows: 
             o    the maximum amount of security for partnerships with  
               five or fewer licensees rendering professional services on  
               behalf of the partnership shall not be less than two  
               million dollars ($2,000,000); 
             o    for partnerships with more than five licensees rendering  
               professional services on behalf of the partnership, an  
               additional one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) of  
               security shall be obtained for each additional licensee; 
             o    however, the maximum amount of security is not required  
               to exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000).  (Corp. Code  
               Sec. 16956(a)(4)(A)-(B).)  

           Existing law  provides that the impairment or exhaustion of the  
          aggregate limit of liability by amounts paid under the policy in  
          connection with the settlement, discharge, or defense of claims  
          applicable to a designated period (not to exceed 12 months)  
          shall not require the partnership to acquire additional  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 5 of ? 

          insurance for that designated period.  (Corp Code Sec.  
          16956(a)(4)(A).) 

           Existing law  provides that the partnership remains in compliance  
          with this section (mandating security for claims) during a  
          calendar year, notwithstanding amounts paid during that calendar  
          year from the accounts, funds, Treasury obligations, letters of  
          credit, or bonds in defending, settling, or discharging  
          specified claims, provided that the amount of those accounts,  
          funds, Treasury obligations, letters of credit, or bonds was at  
          least the amount specified in the preceding sentence as of the  
          first business day of that calendar year. (Corp Code Sec.  
          16956(a)(4)(B).)

           Existing law  requires the LLP to confirm, as specified, that as  
          of the most recently completed fiscal year of the partnership,  
          the LLP had a net worth equal to or exceeding $10 million.   
          (Corp Code Sec. 16956(a)(4)(D).) Existing law provides that  
          unless the partnership has satisfied the requirement that its  
          minimum net worth exceeds $10 million, each partner of a  
          registered LLP or foreign LLP providing engineering or land  
          surveying services, by virtue of that person's status as a  
          partner, automatically guarantees payment of the difference  
          between the maximum amount of security required for the  
          partnership and the required security in the policy or polices  
          specified above, provided that the aggregate amount paid by all  
          partners under these guarantees shall not exceed the difference.  
           (Corp. Code Sec. 16956(a)(4)(C).)  

           This bill  would extend the sunset on the engineering and land  
          surveying LLP provisions above until January 1, 2021. 

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.    Stated need for the bill  

          The author writes: 

            Next January, without SB 284, engineers and land surveyors up  
            and down the state will no longer have the flexibility they  
            need to form a Limited Liability Partnership [LLP], should  
            they desire to do so.  [ . . . ]

            3.4 million California small businesses account for 99 percent  
            of the state's employers and employ 52 percent of the  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 6 of ? 

            workforce. Small businesses are the backbone to any economy.   
            Small business owners know their business best and should have  
            every tool available to them to be successful in California.   
            Engineers and land surveyors are a foundation for business[ ]  
            growth in California and continuing to extend the same  
            flexibility to form limited liability partnerships as  
            architects allows them to contribute to business and job  
            growth throughout the state.

          The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) of  
          California, sponsor of this bill, notes that the vast majority  
          of other states allow professional services to be engaged in  
          these LLP business structures.  ACEC writes that "[p]roviding  
          options to business makes sense.  Allowing engineering and land  
          surveying firms the option to structure as LLPs [provides]  
          additional flexibility that will encourage business expansion in  
          some instances, while boosting project delivery options.  SB 284  
          offers flexibility in business and encourages innovative  
          partnerships that will allow California to better meet our  
          growing infrastructure needs." 

          In support of the bill, the California Land Surveyors  
          Association (CLSA) writes that the bill enhances the private  
          practice of and surveying by providing an alternative method of  
          organizing a land surveying firm.  CLSA adds that bill is not  
          only important to facilitate a multi-state engineering or land  
          surveying firm (as virtually every other state allows licensed  
          professionals and design professions to organize as a limited  
          liability company and the bill would allow parity among the  
          partners in various states), but that it also should be noted  
          "that the provisions of Senate Bill 284 continue the balanced  
          approach required of the current professions that enjoy LLP  
          status.  Although LLP status provides for a limitation on  
          liability, it also requires that a land surveying firm that  
          chooses the LLP form of business organization maintain certain  
          liability insurance thresholds, pledge collateral, or maintain a  
          $10 million minimum net worth that will protect the public in  
          the event injury is caused by land surveying service." 

          2.    Important role of insurance minimums and sunset reviews

           California's LLP law has always sought to strike a balance  
          between allowing professional licensed service providers to  
          operate in a business model that offers both tax and  
          liability-limiting advantages while preserving to an appropriate  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 7 of ? 

          degree the ability of a party injured by professional negligence  
          to recover damages for that injury.  Thus, an insurance  
          requirement has always been imposed upon professional licensees  
          that seek to operate as an LLP.  

          The rationale behind the insurance requirement is to ensure that  
          a person who is injured by a LLP is likely able to collect his  
          or her judgment.  Because of the limited liability attributes of  
          a LLP, the injured person can no longer rely on the joint and  
          several liability of the partners and their personal assets, but  
          must look to the assets of the LLP.  To ensure adequate but not  
          necessarily complete recovery in all claims, the insurance  
          requirement is added as a condition of being permitted to  
          operate as a LLP.  Thus, even if the LLP has few assets because  
          the profits are regularly distributed to its members, the  
          required insurance is available to pay tort damages.  

          The difficulty has always been in the setting of the minimum  
          level of required insurance in an appropriate amount.  While the  
          law has never sought to cover all potential claims, since that  
          would obviate the need and benefit for operating as a LLP, the  
          law has always sought to ensure that most predictable claims are  
          covered.  Hence, committee staff has always sought and used the  
          available insurance claims data in proposing the recommended  
          minimum insurance requirements.        

          For example, when the original LLP law for architects was  
          enacted in 1998, the scant insurance data then available (see  
          also, Comment 3, below) did not provide a clear picture of the  
          types and amounts of judgments assessed against architects for  
          professional negligence.  According to this Committee's analysis  
          of AB 469 (Cardoza, Ch. 504, Stats. 1998), the available  
          information suggested that the average payout on claims against  
          architects between 1993 and 1997 was about $32,000.   By the  
          time the architects' LLP authorization and insurance provisions  
          came up for sunset review ten years later, some additional  
          information became available (though that information was still  
          not complete).  This Committee's analysis noted at the time  
          that, according to the data gathered by the sponsors from  
          insurers representing less than 50 percent of the market, the  
          average payment of claims against small firms with gross  
          billings of $500,000 had at least doubled, averaging $65,526 in  
          the preceding 10 years.  The information further reflected that  
          for firms with between $500,000 and $5 million in gross  
          billings, the average payout over the 10 years studied was  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 8 of ? 

          $141,699, with the average reaching $216,279 in 2004 and  
          subsiding lightly to $206,335 in 2005.  Further, for firms with  
          gross billings over $5 million, which likely involve firms with  
          a large number of architects, the average claims paid over the  
          10-year period was $422,657, with a spike in 1998 of $1.6  
          million and a low in 2004 of $119,970.  (Under the LLP law, a 50  
          licensee architectural firm would be required to carry the  
          maximum $5 million in insurance.)  In addition, the limited  
          claims data reflected that the 10 largest claims paid on behalf  
          of California architects ranged between $955,735 and $2,302,214,  
          with six of those claims being at or over $1,000,000.  

          Based upon that information, this Committee was able to  
          determine that the proposed increase in the minimum insurance  
          levels for architect LLPs from $500,000 to $1,000,000 for LLP  
          firms with five or fewer licensees was appropriate and that a  
          "step-up" for larger LLPs (namely, an additional $100,000 per  
          additional licensee after the first five licensees, up to a  
          $5,000,000 maximum) was also appropriate.      

          Accordingly, as discussed in Comment 3, one of the significant  
          policy questions raised by the proposed sunset extension is  
          whether the existing insurance liability requirements for  
          engineer and land surveyor LLPs are sufficient. 




          3.    History of engineer and land surveyor LLP authorization and  
            the resulting insurance minimums  

          This bill seeks to extend the sunset on engineer and land  
          surveyor LLPs, which were first authorized five years ago, after  
          two prior attempts failed. 

          AB 1265 (Benoit, 2003) was the first attempt to add engineers  
          and land surveyors to the list of professions that could  
          organize as LLPs and was analyzed extensively with regard to the  
          insurance coverage requirements.  That bill would have only have  
          provided for minimum insurance liability coverage of $500,000  
          for firms of five or less partners, and would have set the  
          insurance minimum at $5 million for bigger firms.  The bill was  
          ultimately held in this Committee.  Subsequently, in 2005, a  
          second bill was brought to authorize engineers and land surveyor  
          LLPs, AB 180 (Horton, 2005).  That bill would have allowed  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 9 of ? 

          engineers and land surveyors to operate as LLPs if the  
          partnership maintained at least $1.5 million in insurance for a  
          LLP with up to five licensed persons rendering professional  
          services, and $2 million for a LLP with up to 10 licensed  
          persons rendering professional services.  For partnerships with  
          more than 10 licensed persons rendering professional services on  
          behalf of the LLP, the bill would have required an additional $1  
          million for every one to five additional licensed persons  
          rendering professional services on behalf of the partnership.   
          However, the total aggregate limit of liability under the policy  
          or policies of insurance for the LLP was not required to exceed  
          $7.5 million, less amounts paid in defending, settling, or  
          discharging claims, provided that a minimum of two-thirds of  
          each policy or policies of insurance is reserved for payment of  
          claims and not more than one-third of each policy or policies of  
          insurance may be used for payment of costs for defending,  
          settling, or discharging claims. 

          When this Committee considered AB 180's $1 million dollar  
          proposed insurance levels, it noted that the insurance data  
          provided at the time demonstrated that highest claims paid in  
          [five] of the last 10 years surveyed exceeded $1,000,000.  The  
          highest were $3.5 million in 2002, $1.45 million in 1995, $1.15  
          million in 1994, $1,100,000 in 2003, and $1,086,500 in 1998.   
          There also was no data available for claims resulting from the  
          recent disasters involving landslides in Southern California.   
          Complicating the analysis for AB 180 was the fact that data  
          showing the frequency of such high payouts was requested but  
          denied by all but one insurer on the grounds that such  
          information is proprietary.  That one insurer, representing  
          about 40 [percent] of the market, indicated that in the past  
          five years, one claim exceeded $1.5 million (but did not  
          indicate by how much), two claims were within the $1 million to  
          $1.25 range, and two were within the $500,000 to $1 million  
          range (out of 234 claims).   (See Sen. Judiciary Com. analysis  
          of AB 180 (2004-2005 Reg. Session) pp. 6-7.) 

          AB 180 passed this Committee and the bill was amended to  
          increase the insurance levels to $1.5 million in light of  
          concerns over the ability of injured parties to be able to  
          collect judgments against engineer and land surveying firms  
          operating as LLPs, but the bill was ultimately gutted and  
          amended into a different topic.  Finally, in 2010, SB 1008  
          (Padilla, Ch. 634, Stats. 2010) succeeded in adding engineer and  
          land surveyors to the list of authorized LLPs.  As originally  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 10 of ? 

          heard in this Committee, the bill would have provided for $1  
          million minimum liability coverage.  At the time, this  
          Committee's analysis noted based on available data, that under  
          those terms, only five of the highest claims would have been  
          covered.   Accordingly, to address that issue and ensure that  
          the insurance liability coverage could cover all but one of the  
          largest claims, this Committee raised the minimum insurance  
          levels to $1.5 million dollars.  By the end of the legislative  
          process, the minimum level was raised to $2 million dollars, as  
          is reflected under current law.  

          At this time, staff notes that no information has been provided  
          to this Committee with regard to the insurance claims in the  
          five years since SB 1008 authorized engineer and land surveyor  
          LLPs.  As introduced, this bill would have repealed the sunset  
          on both the LLP authorization and the requisite insurance levels  
          mandated as a condition of the LLP authorization.  As approved  
          by the Senate Business, Professions & Economic Development  
          Committee, the bill instead would extend the sunset by five  
          years to January 1, 2021. 

          Staff notes that incomplete data is not a new problem.  In 1998,  
                     the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis for AB 469 stated:   
             
            The scanty available claims data provided by the sponsor does  
            not provide a clear picture of the types of judgments assessed  
            against architects for professional negligence.  

          (See AB 469 (Cardoza, Ch. 504, Stats. 1998), extending the  
          sunset for architecture LLPs.)  

          Again in 2001, that precise information is not available.  (AB  
          1596 (Shelley, Ch. 595, Stats. 2001).)  And in 2006, only  
          partial information was made available when the architecture LLP  
          authorization once again came up for review.  (AB 2914 (Leno,  
          Ch. 426, Stats. 2006).)  As noted then, at the very least, the  
          lack of complete data justifies the policy of extending the  
          sunset for the LLP law for moderate periods of time, to enable  
          periodic review, rather than its complete repeal.   This bill  
          would appear to be consistent with that policy, by extending the  
          sunset by five years.  

          That being said, given the lack of information to help evaluate  
          the efficacy of the insurance minimums set in 2010 (despite the  
          availability of claims data for engineers and land surveyors in  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 11 of ? 

          the past), it may be appropriate to reduce the proposed sunset  
          even further, to three years.  This would provide the sponsors  
          time to acquire the necessary information to better inform a  
          longer sunset (or repeal of the sunset), without disrupting  
          existing LLPs in the interim.  Furthermore, if the data were to  
          show that insurance amounts are currently insufficient to cover  
          the majority of claims, the shorter sunset will ensure that the  
          Legislature is able to appropriately respond to such an issue.
             Suggested Amendment  :

            Replace the January 1, 2021 sunset in the bill with January 1,  
            2019 sunset

          4.  Potential future issue 
             
          The current insurance coverage required in all the LLP laws  
          provide that "the impairment or exhaustion of the aggregate  
          limit of liability by amounts paid under the policy in  
          connection with the settlement, discharge, or defense of claims  
          applicable to a designated period shall not require the  
          partnership to acquire additional insurance for that designated  
          period."

          In short, the required insurance is a "wasting assets" policy  
          that could well be depleted by defense costs and multiple claims  
          in a coverage year so that the more difficult claims to resolve,  
          usually the larger claims, could result in no payment at all to  
          the tort victim because the required insurance assets for the  
          covered year has been exhausted.  

          Especially in light of the current lack of data, the issue of  
          the "wasting asset" insurance policy and whether there should be  
          an obligation on LLPs to replenish the policy during the course  
          of the year deserves re-visiting in the future as defense and  
          claims costs are likely to increase year after year.     


           Support  :  American Institute of Architects, California Council  
          (AIACC); California Land Surveyors Association (CLSA);  
          Structural Engineers Association of California

           Opposition  :  None Known 

                                        HISTORY
           







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 12 of ? 

           Source  :  American Council of Engineering Companies of California

           Related Pending Legislation :  SB 177 (Wieckowski, 2015) would  
          extend the sunset on the authorization for an LLC to be granted  
          an alarm company operator's license, conditioned upon meeting  
          certain insurance level requirements, to January 1, 2022.  That  
          bill is also scheduled to be heard in this Committee on April  
          28, 2015. 

           Prior Legislation  :

          AB 1608 (Olsen, Ch. 669, Stats. 2014), among other things,  
          authorized the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services  
          within the Department of Consumer Affairs to issue a private  
          investigator's license to LLCs if, among other things, certain  
          insurance requirements are met.  The bill included a January 1,  
          2020, sunset date. 

          SB 1077 (Price, Ch. 291, Stats. 2012), among other things,  
          authorized LLCs to be issued alarm company operator licenses if  
          certain liability insurance requirements are met.  The bill  
          included a January 1, 2016, sunset date. 

          SB 560 (Gorell, Ch. 291, Stats. 2011) extended the sunset for  
          architecture LLPs to January 1, 2019, under the continuation of  
          the insurance levels required in AB 1596 (Shelley, Ch. 595,  
          Stats. 2001).  The bill, as introduced, proposed to remove the  
          sunset entirely. 

          SB 1008 (Padilla, Ch. 634, Stats. 2010) authorized licensed  
          engineers and land surveyors to organize and operate as LLPs, as  
          specified, and requires engineers and land surveyors organizing  
          as LLPs to carry insurance liability coverage, as specified.   
          This authorization is set to sunset on January 1, 2016. 

          SB 392 (Florez, Ch. 698, Stats. 2009) authorized the State  
          Contractors' License Board to issue to an LLC a license to  
          provide contactor services, if the LLC met the liability  
          coverage requirements provided in the bill (and met other  
          licensing requirements).  

          SB 1337 (Correa, 2008) was similar to SB 392, but lacked the  
          insurance and/or escrow deposit requirements for the LLC and its  
          members.  The bill died in this Committee.








          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 13 of ? 

          SB 1225 (Harmon, Ch. 114, Stats. 2008) permitted an LLC to  
          obtain a license as a cemetery authority provided it conformed  
          to the insurance requirements for professional LLPs and provided  
          no licensee practicing his or her profession becomes an  
          owner-member of the LLC.

          SB 414 (Corbett, Ch. 80, Stats. 2007) increased the liability  
          coverage amounts for accountancy and law LLPs. 

          AB 2914 (Leno, Ch. 426, Stats. 2006) extended the sunset date of  
          architecture LLPs until January 1, 2012, and increased the  
          amount of insurance that such LLPs must hold.

          AB 180 (Jerome Horton, 2005) was substantially similar to SB  
          1008 (Padilla, Ch. 634, Stats. 2010) in its provisions of the  
          organization of engineers and land surveyors as LLPs, and  
          contained a sunset date.  That bill passed this Committee but  
          was ultimately gutted and amended to deal with a different  
          topic.
           
          AB 1265 (Benoit, 2003) would have permitted professional  
          engineers and land surveyors to organize as an LLP and would  
          have required that, depending on the number of partners, the LLP  
          have between $500,000 and $5 million in insurance.  This bill  
          was held in this Committee.

          AB 1596 (Shelley, Ch. 595, Stats. 2001) extended the sunset date  
          of statutes permitting architects to organize as LLPs, to  
          January 1, 2007.  

          AB 469 (Cardoza, Ch. 504, Stats. 1998) authorized architects to  
          form a LLP provided the partnership had between $500,000 and $5  
          million in insurance depending on the number of partners in the  
          LLP.  Only partnerships with a net worth of $10 million or more  
          were allowed to become LLPs.  This bill included a January 1,  
          2002, sunset date. 
           
          AB 2401 (Miller, 1996) would have allowed contractors to operate  
          as LLCs.  The bill died in this Committee.

          SB 141 (Beverly, Ch. 57, Stats. of 1995) would have added  
          numerous categories of state regulated professional service  
          providers to the types of businesses that could operate as LLCs.  
           However, opponents of SB 141 and that bill's sponsor were  
          unable to agree as to whether or not professional or licensed  







          SB 284 (Cannella)
          Page 14 of ? 

          LLC service providers should carry adequate insurance to ensure  
          their financial ability to respond to legal judgments for  
          contract or tort claims.  Consequently, those additional classes  
          of businesses were amended out of SB 141 prior to its enactment.

          SB 513 (Calderon, Ch. 679, Stats. 1995) authorized the  
          establishment of LLPs for licensed attorneys and licensed  
          accountants, as long as the LLP purchased a liability insurance  
          policy or maintained bank deposits of least $100,000 per limited  
          liability partner (or an aggregate of not less than $500,000 for  
          fewer than five partners and not more than $5 million for all  
          others).  Only partnerships with a net worth of $10 million or  
          more were allowed to become LLPs.    

          SB 469 (Beverly and Killea, Ch. 1200, Stats. 1994) See  
          Background.

           Prior Vote  : Senate Business, Professions and Economic  
          Development Committee: (Ayes 9, Noes 0)

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