Assembly Standing Committee on Insurance

Good morning. Welcome to the Assembly Insurance Committee. Today we're going to start as a Subcommitee as we wait for Committee Members to arrive and we will consider seven bills. Two bills are proposed on consent. These bills are file item two, SB230, and file item seven, SB854. Okay.

The first item today that will consider is SB8 by Senator Ashby. Come up whenever you're ready. Senator.

Thank you for having us. Good morning, the Committee Members. Happy to be here. Hopefully get you started with a not too difficult one this morning. Save the hard stuff for my colleagues later. SB 8, which, you know, small number means I've been here before and bringing it back again.

This bill has been narrowed a bit from last year. It sailed through both sides of the House, but the Governor had some issues, so we hope to have corrected them and bring it back to him this year. The bill extends workers compensation and disability protections to Sacramento County park rangers.

Park rangers across the state serve a variety of functions, including protecting regional parklands. Here in Sacramento, that means a lot of our, we have the convergence of two rivers, so they're busy, and they work along those rivers every day.

In order to do this job, the park rangers must complete extensive training and are required to complete the POST certified academy, which is the same as law enforcement in our region, both sheriffs and the police department. The park rangers are the first point of contact for disturbances facing law enforcement issues along our rivers and in our parks.

Despite this, the Sacramento County park rangers are not given the same workers compensation and disability protections granted to other state park rangers. Somebody had the foresight to do this for LA already, so they're already in. We seek to join them. I could give you many examples and stories, but I won't because you have so many bills.

The bottom line is, right now, two people who have the same training, same certification, but wear a different badge on their side, meaning one is a park ranger and one is a deputy sheriff, could actually jointly be doing the same job at the same time.

This has happened in Sacramento County. Are attacked, injured, and they don't have the same protections, though they're doing the same job. SB 8 seeks to remedy that, and I will respectfully ask for an aye vote when you do have a quorum here. With me, I have the chief ranger for Sacramento County's Regional Parks, Chief Orman.

Good morning. Thank you for having me here. Just to reiterate what has already been said, we are basically police officers in park ranger uniforms in the Sacramento County Regional Park System. We have the, much like LA, we have the unique characteristic of working in a mostly urban environment, which is where most of our arrests and our felony crimes take place. Daily, the rangers are faced with armed felons, desperate fugitives.

We make approximately 350 felony arrests a year, over a thousand misdemeanor arrests, and issue about 2,000 citations. It's a very challenging job geographically. Many times these rangers are in remote areas by themselves or maybe with just one other ranger, where help is a long ways away. And it really comes down to equity issue, where they could literally be standing next to a sheriff's deputy. There could be some kind of violent encounter with a suspect.

Both of them are equally injured in this encounter, and one is going to be treated much different than the other as far as the disability benefit. The reality is, when a police officer or ranger is hurt, that's when they need our support the most, and we're falling short of that for the park rangers. This bill has the full support of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. And it is really seen as a necessity for my ability to retain employees. Last time I testified on this, I was fully staffed. That's not the case now. Much is predicted.

A lot of the 2-3 year employees I have that we've paid to put through the police academy figure out in pretty short order that this is missing from their benefits. And it is one of the reasons they look at leaving, wanting to have a long career where they may be faced at some point with some injuries, where it causes a permanent disability or a temporary disability where they're going to be off of work. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support in the room? If so, please come to the mic. Okay. Seeing none. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee for questions. All right. Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Yeah. I, you know, respectfully ask for an aye vote and would just say the only difference between this year's bill and last year's bill is that I was asked to narrow it, which breaks my heart. I wish I could have included every park ranger system that in the state that has falls under the same exact purview. But maybe if we get one more jurisdiction in there, another Member at some point could come back around and gather up the rest. But we should make it right for as many park rangers as we possibly can. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We will take that up when we get a quorum. You're welcome.

Okay, Next we have SB 429 by Senator Cortese. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Well, thank you, Chair Calderon and Members of the Committee very happy to be here. Presenting SB 429, which establishes the nation's first public wildfire catastrophe model. California is experiencing an insurance crisis, one that has been driven in large part by our increased wildfire risk.

And as of 2023, nearly 1.3 million homes were at risk of extreme wildfires and over 80% of new properties built were in high or very high fire risk areas. Catastrophe models predict the future losses of natural disasters, often use as benchmarks to establish zones of residential commercial risk, among other things.

However, these models are not subject to review nor accessible to the public. If a customer's drop from their insurance plan, for example, because that information is proprietary, there's not going to be an opportunity to review that. Publicly accessible data and actuarial analysis can help achieve wildfire mitigation at the community wide scale needed to prevent more tragic loss.

While establishing the state as a national leader in innovation and safety, SB 429 helps homeowners, businesses and developers understand whether they're getting a fair deal on insurance, whether they're when homeowners know their risk, they can take meaningful steps to reduce it, protecting their communities and lowering insurance costs.

With us today to testify in support is Josephine Figueroa on behalf of the Department of Insurance and Richard Brewer Otis with United Policyholders. Although I think that's not accurate, so I'll let them self introduce. I apologize for that. Thank you.

Yes.

At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Please go.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Josephine Figueroa, Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara as a proud sponsor. Insurance Commissioner Lara would excuse me.

Like to thank Senator Cortese for authoring this critical measure to strengthen our wildfire mitigation efforts by allowing California to use all tools available. With extreme wildfire increases over the past decade, there's a need to better plan and prepare communities at a level we have never seen before.

SB 429 would establish the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program and allow the Department to pursue partnership to research public catastrophic modeling to reach the goal of improving wildfire safety. The California Wildfire Public Model unites two critical strategies.

Building a publicly accessible model alongside outreach initiatives to identify and educate users of the model, SB 429 would allow the Department to harness the power of California's public and private University system, charging the Department with initiating and competitive grant program to create a research and educational center housed at one or more California universities.

This would be the first in the nation public wildfire model and we will be critical tool for firefighting city leaders, scientists and students and keep California at the forefront of safety and innovation. Wildfire models can be critical to building a safer community.

They can provide insight for state and local emergency planners and aid wildfire safety efforts that saves lives and property and support effective regulation and insurance rates. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Richard Brewer Otis. I'm a Staff Attorney speaking on behalf of United Policyholders in support of SB 429.

This bill will facilitate the creation of a public catastrophe model, a tool that will serve as a measuring stick and benchmark for stakeholders including the California Department of Insurance Regulation Bureau to use to evaluate catastrophe models created by private companies for insurance industry clients.

The public CAT model contemplated by this bill will help expose if and when private CAT models are overstating risk, understating mitigation and being used to justify excessive rates. At present, all wildfire catastrophe models are proprietary. Closed to public scrutiny. These private black box models heavily influence insurance availability and affordability.

Yet policymakers, consumers, community planners left in the dark as to the assumptions the models are based on. With the representative serving on the California Insurance Commission Public Wildfire Advisory Committee, United Policyholders has been calling for the creation of a public CAT model in California for years.

Public CAT models have been deployed successfully elsewhere, including Florida's public hurricane loss model which the Florida Insurance Commissioner Mike Yorski touts as a tremendous long term success story. California can and should lead the nation in wildfire resilience and insurance innovation. This Bill is a credit critical step towards that future. We respectfully urge your

aye vote in support of this bill.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room? Please come forward. Seeing none. Do we have any lead opposition in the room?

Good morning. Mayra Baena with the Mesa Verde Group. On behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support.

Okay. Okay. I'm going to bring back to the Committee for questions from the Committee. Do we have any questions for the Senator? Okay. Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you very much. I would just say that as with many bills, but especially this one and other wildfire bills as both houses are aware of, there's been a lot of work going back months and months to get to this point.

So we thank the Department of Insurance and everybody who's been involved and respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. And when we have a quorum, we will take that up for a vote. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, now we're waiting for authors Senator Allen, Senator Jones and Senator Durazo. If you could please come to the Assembly Insurance Committee, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.

We also need Assembly Insurance Committee Members to please come to the Committee so we can establish a quorum. Okay, we're going to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll now take up the consent calendar. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

This is on the consent calendar, which includes item number 2, SB 230, by Senator Laird. The motion is due pass recommended consent to the floor. And item number 7, SB 800, by the Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. The motion is do pass recommended consent to the Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we're going to take up file item 1, SB 8 by Ashby. We need a motion. Thank you. Please call the roll.

This is on file, item number 1, SB 8 by Senator Ashby. The motion is due pass.

[Roll Call]

Okay, next we'll take file item 3, SB 429 by Senator Cortese. Item first and a second. Please call the roll.

This is a File item number 3, SB 429 by Senator Cortese. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Emergency Management.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we are going to wait 10 more minutes for Senate authors to come to Committee. If they don't show up in 10 minutes, we're going to put those bills over till next week.

Welcome, Senator Allen. Senator Jones. Oh my God. I take that back. Senator Jones. Okay, Whenever you're ready to present SB 525.

Manufactured home insurance. Thank you for waiting for me. It's usually the Senate waiting for the Assembly, so I appreciate the Assembly having a good attitude today and waiting for the Senate. With that, I hear a motion and a second on the table. I'm happy to answer any questions, if the dais has any.

After that comment, I can't support the bill.

Do you want to have your witnesses in support?

I would love to do that. Yes, ma'am.

Okay, go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Wysocki with WMA. I want to thank the author for introducing 525. We believe it'll help mobile home park residents obtain insurance coverage for their home and their contents by requiring FAIR Plan to offer policies to mobile home park owner or mobile homeowners.

Owners across the state are having difficulty achieving and securing adequate insurance, as you all know. Doubly true, however, of mobile home owners in parks. This is a huge problem for park residents and park owners, since most of our managers are residents in the parks themselves. Our park managers live in the parks.

Many of them have been there over 20 years, and it's tough to not develop a close relationship with people who live in the communities. So contrary to the assertions of certain interest groups, residents and management in our parks have a very collaborative and close relationship, and we're proud of that.

And we work with our residents on a daily basis. That's why we're supporting WMA or supporting SB 525. If the FAIR Plan is made available to our residents, they'll at least have some ability to protect themselves from being financially devastated if the unthinkable happens.

And if a mobile home catches on fire, it's almost a complete loss, often being engulfed in flames within minutes. This bill will help the owners of these homes sleep a little better at night knowing that they have some insurance. It's a compassionate bill. It's a common sense measure. It'll help residents in mobile home parks. And we thank the author for his effort to help people living in manufactured housing communities across the state. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Calderon and Vice Chair Wallis, Members of the Committee. My name is Richard Broer Oatis, and I'm speaking on behalf of United Policyholders in support of SB 525. In California, there are only a limited number of insurers that sell coverage for manufactured and mobile homes in the current marketplace, Californians who own these types of homes, who are often lower income, they're having a harder time finding options to stay financially protected.

SB 525 will provide crucial help by ensuring that manufactured homeowners will at least have the option of choosing replacement cost coverage so that they have enough insurance to cover them and help rebuild their lives when disaster strikes. Insurance coverage that's limited to actual cash value, the alternative, only pays the depreciated value of what was lost, which often falls short of what's needed to rebuild when a home suffers a total loss.

Replacement cost coverage gives survivors a real path to recovery and financial stability. At United Policyholders, we work with families every day who are trying to rebuild after disasters and we know the struggles people face when the coverage they were sold is inadequate. This legislation ensures that manufactured homeowners have access to insurance policies comparable to those available for traditional dwellings. This promotes fairness and stability in California's insurance market. We respectfully urge your aye vote in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room? Please come forward.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of San Marcos in support of the bill.

Okay, do we have any lead opposition in the room? Seeing none. Any public opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Vice Chair Wallis.

Senator, I just want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. It's a big deal, not just for my district, but up and down the state. So really looking forward to supporting this bill, and thank you for your work on this.

Okay, we have a motion and second. Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number five, SB 525 by Senator Jones. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Nearly unanimous. Thank you all.

Leave that open for absent members. Thank you, Senator Jones, for coming so quick.

I appreciate you.

I need to change my- chair can I? She told me the wrong number.

While we wait, Senator Allen and Durazzo should be on their way. We're going to open the roll for members to add on. Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item- item number one. SB 8 by Senator Ashby. [roll call]. On the consent calendar, this is item number two, SB 230 by Senator Laird. And item number seven, SB 854 by the Committee Labor, Public Employment and Retirement.

[roll call]. Item number three, SB 429 by Senator Cortese. [roll call]. This is item number five, SB 525 by Senator Jones. [roll call].

Okay, welcome, Senator Allen, whenever you're ready you can--

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Start on SB 495. But before you begin, will you be accepting the committee amendm- amendments reflected in the analysis?

I will.

Yes I will be accepting the amendments.

Thank you, Senator.

Great.

So this bill comes out of the difficult experience of so many of my constituents.

And assemblymember Harabedian associated with the recent wildfires in the Palisades in Altadena, these folks have now been working through the very difficult process of filing claims with insurance companies that trying to reconstruct their homes and replace lost belongings. This is- This is ultimately about the contents coverage product that exists within the insurance industry.

Under current law, a homeowner that experiences a total loss of 100% of your property gone, they can receive a payment of up to up to $250,000 or 30% of the structure limits of their policy without an itemized claim.

And then to get the remainder, they have to go through this pretty intense process of trying to reconstruct all of the things that they lost, create an itemized list that includes the estimated value, age, condition of every single item lost in the disaster.

And still a lot of insurers will only then pay the depreciated value until the homeowner repurchases and submits receipts for each item. Some insurers require policyholders to submit these lists and proof of loss within 60 days of the destruction, which I'm sure any of you who've been working with fire victims know how incredibly difficult that is.

You're trying to change homes and figure out a place for your kids to go to school and your life is totally turned upside down. So this has just proven to be really unrealistic for policyholders experiencing loss.

A lot of them weren't even able to access their properties, in some cases for nearly a month after the fires because of the unsafe and hazardous conditions in the burn areas. So the amendments do scale back the ambition of the bill, but they do not entirely eliminate the burden of itemizing.

But it's still my feeling that the bill as amended, will provide a meaningful improvement for homeowners and ensure that fewer victims of disasters will have to go through what so many in the past have had to go through.

So now with the amendments, the bill would require insurers to provide up to 60% personal property coverage limits up to $350,000 without requiring a content inventory.

It extends the period of time for policyholders to submit proof of loss from up to 100 days in the event of a declared emergency, with the potential for additional three month extensions for reasons outside the policyholder's control.

And then it gives our Department of Insurance the tool to collect catastrophe modeling data from insurers to understand risks in the insurance market. So here in support of the bill, we've been working closely together throughout this whole process.

Josephine Figueroa, who's a great public servant in her own right over at our Department of Insurance, she's the Deputy Commissioner for Legislation at the DOI. And we also have Richard Otis, who's from United Pilot Policyholders.

Thank you. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the committee, Josephine Figueroa, Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. I also like to mention joining me today is Tony Cignarale, Deputy Commissioner for Consumer Services and Mark McConaugh to assist with any technical questions you may have.

Also a great public servant for California as a proud sponsor Insurance Commission. I would like to thank Senator Allen for his leadership in authoring this critical measure. The goal of SB 495 is to simplify the process for consumers already facing traumatic experiences.

As proposed to be amended, SB 495 will require insurers to pay 60% of personal property coverage limits up to a cap of 350,000 to policyholders who suffer total loss during a declared emergency. The bill will allow insurers to require policyholder to also sign an attestation form to receive this payment.

Additionally, the bill will extend probably limit time frame for policyholders to submit proof of loss to 100 days with possible extensions for good costs. Under current law, insurers provide only 30% of primary structure coverage limits capped at 300-250,000 after a total loss.

This formula can be confusing for policyholders and often leads to insufficient payments for properties with higher limits as seen during the recent wildfires. Los Angeles wildfires. Moreover, SB 495 mandates that insurers provide the Department with annual reinsurance and catastrophic model data for policies written in California the previous year.

Access to clear point in time data on reinsurance and catastrophe modeling related to wildfire risk will ensure the department will be able to analyze market trends and scenarios more effectively. SB 495 streamlines cumbersome procedures that ensures that policy receive the funds and they are or to begin the recovery process.

With these thoughtful reforms, we are taking necessary steps towards a more resilient California. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote.

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Otis, Staff Attorney, speaking on behalf of United Policyholders. In the aftermath of large scale wildfire and other disasters, United Policyholders works closely with survivors who are trying to rebuild their lives.

We offer lots of things forms, sample letters, webinars, support tools to help people navigate the insurance recovery process. But no tool can help fix what's often the hardest part for many survivors.

The mental anguish and often the deep frustration and anger policyholders feel when they're forced to list out every single item they own after they had already suffered a total loss just to receive the payouts previously promised and sold to them by their insurance company.

When policyholders suffer a total loss of everything they own, they deserve the full coverage promised to them by their insurance companies in the form of a policy limits payout without needing to complete onerous lists and forms. Rebuilding after a total loss is overwhelming. People are forced to remember every toothbrush, pant, pair of shoes.

It adds needless pain to an already traumatic experience. Survivors need space to heal. They need to be able to move on, not to be buried in paperwork in the past. SB 495 offers a compassionate practical solution. Allow payments of contents coverage without inventory in total loss during declared emergencies.

United Policyholders supports the bill as written and we also support the contemplated amendments that cap this inventory free payout at 60% of policy limits up to $350,000. We respectfully urge your aye vote in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room? Please come forward.

Good morning. Mayra Baena with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support.

Thank you. And do we have any lead opposition in the room? Please come forward.

Good morning, Madam. Good morning. Madam Chair, member, Seren Taylor, on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. Actually not in opposition. We just want to thank the author. The sponsor, the committee and everyone for the constructive conversations over the past month based on the amendments which mitigate many of our concerns.

We'll be withdrawing our opposition and being neutral on the bill. So thank you.

Mark Sektnan with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. We appreciate all the work. This is a hard balancing act between the challenges of doing inventory and paying out proceeds that were not actually related to a loss. But we believe that this strikes that balance. Withdraw our opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Sherry McHugh representing the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies. Please remove our opposition. And we thank the author for taking the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator Assemblyman Harabedian, I just promoted you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author. Obviously, you know, we, we both have kind of been arm in arm trying to help our constituents work through these fires.

And I'll tell you, on a personal experience, I- I hear quite a bit from my constituents on this issue, and it has been top of mind and priority for them.

So this is a very important bill and you've been really tenacious with it, and I appreciate just how well you've worked with the opposition to get to a place where people are actually going to get help right away. And I think it sets a good precedent and the compromise seems very reasonable and rational.

My only question now is on the proof of loss. If we're giving 60% without proof, is the proof of loss really just. If we want, if the consumer policyholder wants to get up to 100%, they then have the option to provide proof and itemization to get up to 100%. Is that where we kind of landed? Basically, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, I can answer that. Tony Cignarale, Deputy Commissioner Consumer Services Department of Insurance that's. That's correct. The proof of loss is required on any aspect of the claim, including the inventory.

So, yes, if you receive an advance payment for inventory, you would then be required to submit a proof of loss, which for an inventory would be a list of your items that you lost within, under the terms of the proposed bill, 100 days plus extensions for good cause.

So you would still be required to submit what's called a proof of loss in that situation.

What if I was just opting into the 60%? What is the proof of, quote, unquote, proof of loss there?

If you're just opting into the 60%, all you would need to do is make a simple request for that 60% and receive that fund. And there would be no other obligation unless you decided to go further and obtain the remaining portion of your coverage.

So someone, and that was going to be the next question. Someone could offer or request the 60% and then still provide itemization to get up to 100%. That extra 40% absolutely. Okay. Appreciate it. I'll move the bill. Appreciate it.

Any other questions from committee members? Comments? Okay. Do we have a second? Okay. Senator, would you like to close?

No. Appreciate. Appreciate all the- the work. And- And I just want to thank our friends from the department who've worked so closely with us on this, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, senator. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number four, SB 495 by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Judiciary. [roll call].

Thank you, members. Thank you.

Okay, we're going to hold the roll open. Okay. Senator Durazzo, whenever you're ready, you can present SB 5.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Here to present SB 590. No one should have to choose between putting food on the table and caring for a seriously ill loved one. And especially not the people who have been contributing, the working people have been contributing each month after month into the paid family leave insurance program.

And that's exactly what's happening in California when a worker loved one is not on the list of family members a worker can care for under California's paid family leave program. Unlike Colorado and other states, California law does not permit a worker to use their paid family leave insurance to care for extended or chosen family.

Our current family leave program fails to meet the needs of California's diverse families. More and more people 55 and older are childless and or unmarried. Immigrants, many of whom have no immediate family nearby, frequently rely on extended family and friends for caregiving.

Also, many LGBTQ adults, especially older adults, do not have accessible relationships with biological relatives and depend upon their family of choice for their care. Paid family leave claims make up roughly 30% of all claims paid for by our Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Family care not related to baby bonding or military exigency is only 3.7% of all claims.

If our use follows other states, caregiving for chosen family will account for only 2.5% of of all family care claims. That means expanding our paid family leave insurance program to cover chosen family will represent less than a tenth of a percent increase in claims paid for by our Disability Insurance Trust Fund.

With such a low cost, it makes no sense for California's paid family leave insurance program to exclude caregiving claims for chosen and extended family. With me here today to speak in support are Eduardo Rubalcava from AARP and Yvette Cervantes, a resident of Orange County.

And good morning. I'm Nina Weiler-Harwell, also with AARP. Just here to introduce Eduardo, who will speak about how important this bill is for older adults and their families.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Eduardo Rubalcava. I am a member of AARP's Capitol Response Team speaking on behalf of the 3.2 million AARP members here in California. AARP is a proud co-sponsor of Senate Bill 590.

SB 590 is essential for older Californians because it will update, it would update the California's paid family leave program to keep pace with the changing family structure. In the 1950s, 52% of families of households had children. Now. 52% of households had children. That's what we would consider the traditional nuclear family.

However, nowadays the traditional nuclear family is no longer the norm. In fact, analysis of 2020 Census Bureau data found that only 18.4% of households follow the traditional nuclear family structure. In addition, USA Facts found in 2023 that more than half of American households are now childless. 29.4% were married households without children and another 29% were single households without children. What these statistics show is the change in the American family households and family structures.

But what they also show is an urgent need for the expansion of paid family leave so that older Californians who are in need of care and help can receive the care from the loved ones that they depend and rely upon. SB 590 would accomplish this by expanding paid family leave to include persons of include designated persons or family of choice as persons who can use job protected paid family leave to provide the care to their loved ones.

SB 590 is important to Californians, to older Californians and their families, because it would ensure that as that aging Californians will be, will have, that aging California that have neither children nor a spouse to help them can rely on extended family members, friends, or neighbors to provide the care and the help that they need during their time of need, like when they're seriously ill. So now is the time to make sure that paid family leave reflects the modern family. Now, we urge your support for SB 590. Thank you.

Okay. My name is Yvette Cervantes. I'm a resident of Orange County and I'm a mom. I'm proud to testify in support of SB 590. I met my son Danny, he/they, in 2015 and he's been my kid ever since. I give him the same tough love and banter as I give my other five kids that I gave birth to. Even though Danny and I are family, we don't have a legal relationship.

So when he went through gender affirming surgery in spring of 21, I was unable to take paid family leave to care for him. And as the primary income for our house, unpaid time just wasn't an option. If I had been able to take paid family leave, I could have been there when Danny got home from the hospital to make sure that he was taking his medication on time and he didn't run out of his medications.

He needed assistance with things that we take for granted like getting up to walk around, having his meals provided and prepared, grocery shopping. He needed help checking and changing his dressing, changing clothes, doing his laundry, cleaning the house, making sure he was sitting up, and getting him to his appointments.

A few days after surgery I was at work when I got a text from him telling me that surgery site felt wet and it was bleeding. I told him he had to get to the ER and thankfully a neighbor was able to rush him there. He he was immediately admitted and was in the hospital for a week.

It was tough knowing he was alone and I couldn't be there when he needed me the most. Being sick, recovering from surgery, or any medical condition is scary. Now try doing that alone. Relationships that are not currently recognized by the law are no less committed or meaningful.

Care for chosen family is just as important and sometimes life savings when it comes to those who are part of the LGBTQ community. Love, patience, and care are part of what helps us begin to define family, not legal or blood relationships. I urge the Assembly Insurance Committee to support SB 590 so California workers like me can use entirely worker funded paid family leave program to care for chosen or extended family members. I ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room?

Good Morning. Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Michaela Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs District 9 in support.

Keith Umemoto on behalf of the California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.

Katie Duberg with California Work and Family Coalition, proud co-sponsor of SB 590 with Legal Aid at Work and Unite LA. Also testifying on behalf of the following organizations in strong support, AAUW California, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Domestic Workers Coalition, California Federation of Business and Professional Women, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, and the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network. Thank you.

Kel O'Hara with Equal Rights Advocates, proud co-sponsor of SB 590. And on behalf of the following organizations in strong support, Californians for Safety and Justice, Caring Across Generations, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Citizens for Choice, Consumer Attorneys of California, Courage California, Health in Partnership, Insure the Uninsured Project, Justice in Aging, and Legal Link. Thank you.

Anke Schennink on behalf of United Auto Workers, UAW Region 6, and Local 1115 California Association of Professional Scientists, in support.

Good morning. Mariya Kalina here on behalf of the California Collaborative for Long Term Services and Supports. We're a statewide coalition of over 50 organizations. I'm not going to list us all, but here in support and respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rachel Kennard on behalf of Equality California, a proud co-sponsor of SB 590. I'm also here on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence in support of SB 590. Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Good morning. Candida Duperroir with California Child Care Resource and Referral Network in support. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Zeenat Yahya with the ACLU in support.

Good morning. Jenna Shankman with the California Coalition on Family Caregiving and the Family Caregiver Alliance in strong support.

Hello. I'm Sarah Diaz with the California WIC Association in support.

Good morning. I'm Kavisa Wood with Nourishing Justly in strong support of SB 590.

Hello. I'm Kevan Insko, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in strong support. Also testifying on behalf of the following organizations, Mujeres Unidas y Activas, National Women's Political Caucus of California, Oasis Legal Services, Orange County Equality Coalition, Parent Voices California, Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, TechEquity Action, Universidad Popular, Women's Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University, and the Women's Foundation California. Thank you.

CT Weber, a Vice President of CARA, California Alliance for Retired Americans, represented a million people in California in support

Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Good morning. Bindu Mukkamala on behalf of the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in support.

Good morning. Yesenia Jimenez with End Child Poverty in California in strong support.

Good morning. Anallely Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.

Good morning. Rachel van Geenhoven with Worksafe in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Good morning. Kate Kriner with the Alzheimer's Association. We're in support of SB 590.

Good morning. Lan Le on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in strong support.

Rhiannon Morales on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in support. Thank you.

Do we have any lead opposition in the room? Any public opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. All right, thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

The people have spoken. I urge an aye vote. Thank you all very much.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number six, SB 590 by Senator Durazo. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Hey. We're going to leave. That's out. Thank you so much. We're going to leave the roll open for five minutes for absent members. In the meantime, we're going to let members that arrive add on. So, Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Thanks, y'all. Thank you. I'm done. Done. Get out of here. Consent, too. Oh, okay. Thank you.

Vote change on item number 6, SB 590 by Senator Durazo. Hadwick. Hadwick. Not voting.

Welcome, Madam Secretary. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Thank you. I'll see you later. Thank you. I'll see you. Yes. Okay. The Assembly Insurance Committee is adjourned.