BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 817
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 817 (Gatto)
As Amended May 12, 2011
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Dickinson, Hagman, Huber, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Huffman, Jones, Monning, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Wieckowski | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to improve vehicle rental statutes.
Specifically, this bill directs the California Law Revision
Commission (CLRC) to study and report its findings and
recommendations to the Legislature on or before December 31,
2012 whether the laws regulating vehicle rental companies and
their consumers would benefit from greater clarity and
concision, including but not limited to Civil Code Sections
1936, 1936.01, 1936.015, 1936.05, and 1936.1.
EXISTING LAW generally regulates certain provisions of vehicle
rental charges and fees and fee-collection, advertising, quotes,
and contracts.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, absorbable costs to the CLRC, which would likely have
to alter its planned work schedule to some extent in order to
meet the deadline for this study and report.
COMMENTS : According to the author, existing statutes regarding
car rental companies would benefit by reorganization and
revision:
Civil Code Section 1936, relating to rental car
transactions, was first enacted in 1988. It relates to
liability, advertising, disclosure, damage waivers,
specific fees not included in base prices, electronic
AB 817
Page 2
surveillance, authorized drivers, special requirements for
the rental of 15-passenger vans, and other provisions
related to rental car transactions. Since 1988, section
1988, section 1936 has been amended numerous times and
further, sections 1936.01, 1936.015, 1936.05 and 1936.1
have all been enacted which includes many provisions that
are redundant to section 1936. The cumulative effect of
these amendments to section 1936 along with the adoption of
the other sections has resulted in a number of redundancies
and a set of laws that is confusingly organized and is
excessively and unnecessarily long. This has led to a lack
of clarity for rental car companies and their customers
when they are faced with a question that pertains to these
code sections. Rental company personnel who are involved in
company operations continually seek legal interpretations
of the meanings of current law.
Few areas of consumer protection have been the subject of more
contested legislation in recent years than the regulation of car
rental companies. Insofar as the statutes would benefit from
clarification and non-substantive reorganization and revision,
the CLRC is ideally suited to this painstaking task, as their
outstanding board and staff has repeatedly demonstrated on
similar projects over many years, ranging from trial court
unification to mechanics' liens and common interest
developments, to cite only some recent examples. Importantly,
CLRC recommendations routinely earn the unanimous respect and
approval of stakeholders such that they are regularly
implemented by the Legislature without controversy.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0000898