Longevity in business is often one of the ways to tell who is providing quality work over time. That's why for contractors having a 'low' license number can be important. Another question brings to light the fact some generals may be unintentionally breaking the law. Lastly, have we discovered a 'loophole' that may 'rain' on the parade of some "C-39"s . . .
Q: I've done quite a bit of research and have been unable to answer what seems like a straightforward question. If the personal license of a Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) is suspended (for bond suspension) is the corporation's license affected. In other words, does the corporation's license depend upon the status of the individual RMO's license?
A: A bond suspension -- or even expiration -- of the qualifier's personal (sole owner) license has no impact on the status of the corporation's license for which he serves as RMO.
Q: I just received a letter from the CSLB telling me they could not reassign my partnership license to our new corporation. In fact they issued us a new license number that begins with a "92". What happens to our old partnership license? Can I still use the old number (which begins with a "63")?
A: Unfortunately, the CSLB cannot reissue a partnership license to any other entity. When conducting business as a corporation, you should use this new license number. If the partnership is still intact you can continue to use this old number but ONLY for the partnership - not the new corporation. If the partnership was dissolved or one of the partners has left or disassociated, this license will be cancelled.
Q: A friend of mine just faxed me one of your recent columns in a magazine (sorry I am not sure which one). It involved a "B" contractor bidding on a project with just one trade. I also have a general building license and often take projects involving one trade. Is this really a problem?
A: Yes it is a potential problem. As I have indicated in prior columns, a "B" may take a prime or subcontract involving TWO or more unrelated trades (framing or carpentry are exceptions). In most cases, it's proper for the "B" to take a project that involves only one trade if it's subcontracted to a properly licensed contractor.
Q: Thank you for the informative information that you contribute to my plan room publications. In regards to your recent question involving a general contractor not being allowed to perform roofing; wasn't there a change in California a year or two ago that said that the general must have Workmen's Comp on file and in force when performing roofing. I believe that may have been the intent of the question.
A: Thank you for the kind words. I am glad you find my columns so informative. I truly enjoy writing these every week and am happy to respond to those who take the time to call, write or email questions.
I believe you're referring to Section 7125, which addresses Worker's Compensation and the "C-39" classification. Only contractors holding the
"C-39" classification are affected by this 2006 law. It states that any active license that includes a roofing classification must have a Certificate of Worker's comp on file with the CSLB (even if they have no employees). Granted, it is nearly impossible to tear-off or install a roof without employees, but there is no specific requirement related to a General ("B") contractor having this insurance coverage. This is one of those apparent 'loopholes' you hear about in laws.
Knowledge is power. Knowing where to go for the answers is half the battle. Get expert assistance immediately when you e-mail info@cutredtape.com, call (916) 443-0657, fax (916) 443-1908, or write me at Capitol Services, Inc., 1225 8th St. Ste. 580, Sacramento, CA 95814.
To read previous issues of Kalb's Column, click on the link here.
© Copyright by David Kalb and Capitol Services Inc.
All rights reserved. For permission to reprint or republish this column,
contact David Kalb at 866-443-0657 (toll free) or info@cutredtape.com
