Reduces the amount of insurance required of licensed private security companies for care, custody, and control from $500,000 to $100,000.
Impact
If enacted, SCR40 will amend Louisiana Administrative Code LAC 46:LIX.203(A)(10)(a). This legislative change is posited to support private security firms by reducing the insurance burden that can deter new entries into the market. In this light, supporters argue that promoting business development is essential for economic growth, while still maintaining public safety through appropriate liability coverage. This legislative amendment is intended to strike a balance between these competing interests.
Summary
SCR40, introduced by Senator White, proposes a significant amendment to existing regulations concerning the insurance obligations of licensed private security companies in Louisiana. The bill seeks to reduce the minimum amount of general liability insurance mandated for coverage of care, custody, and control from $500,000 to $100,000. The underlying rationale presented is to alleviate the financial strain on private security companies that currently face limited options for obtaining such high-limit coverage, thereby encouraging greater business participation in the sector.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding SCR40 appears to be supportive among business advocates, recognizing the need for a regulatory environment that fosters economic participation. However, there are concerns about lowering the insurance coverage limits and whether this could impact public safety or the protections that were initially established to safeguard clients and the general public. The sentiment may sway further as discussions continue about how much liability coverage is deemed necessary for effective risk management in the private security sector.
Contention
Notable points of contention primarily revolve around the implications of reducing liability coverage for security firms. Proponents argue that the current $500,000 threshold creates an excessive barrier, limiting the ability of smaller companies to compete. Conversely, critics may voice concerns regarding the adequacy of $100,000 in coverage when it comes to protecting clients and addressing potential liabilities. The debate thus centers on finding the appropriate balance between fostering business growth and ensuring that public safety standards remain intact.
Requires peer-to-peer car sharing programs provide insurance coverage in amounts equal to the financial responsibility requirements set forth in section three hundred eleven of the vehicle and traffic law; removes requirements relating to requiring additional insurance coverage.
Requires peer-to-peer car sharing programs provide insurance coverage in amounts equal to the financial responsibility requirements set forth in section three hundred eleven of the vehicle and traffic law; removes requirements relating to requiring additional insurance coverage.
An Act Concerning A Study To Use Captive Insurance Companies To Reduce Premium Rate Increases For Connecticut Partnership Long-term Care Insurance Policies And Peer-to-peer Car Sharing.