MD lawmakers heed cleaners on damaged garments bill
In a lopsided committee vote on March 10, Maryland lawmakers rejected House Bill
776, which would have required drycleaners in the state to be financially
liable to consumers for lost or damaged clothes.
The bill, sponsored by Delegate Barbara A. Robinson (D-Baltimore), sought to
make cleaners responsible for paying for or repairing clothes damaged while
under their care.
Additionally, plant owners would also have been required to reimburse the
replacement value of garments that were damaged outright or simply lost.
However, the bill died when 19 members of the House Economic Matters Committee voted against it after the bill’s first hearing. Only two voted in favor. The remaining delegate was excused.
In a unified show of support, members of the Mid-Atlantic Association of
Cleaners and the Korean Dry Cleaners Association of Maryland banded together in
an effort to sway delegates from supporting the bill.
Prior to the official bill hearing, lawmakers were given multiple copies of a
30-page cleaning industry testimony packet that, among other things, emphasized
that findings of the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute’s 2007 Analysis Lab results showed that cleaners were not often the root cause
of damaged garments.
Of all the damaged clothes sent in to DLI for testing, 43.18 percent were
attributed as consumer claims, 31.24 percent were manufacturer claims and only
15.66 percent fell under the fault of drycleaners.
Also included in the testimony was a direct reference to Maryland Commercial Law
16-302, which allows drycleaners to place a lien on garments if consumers have
not paid for work performed on them.
It also gives cleaners the right to sell such items 90 days after the work has
been finished if warning signs have been posted on the premises and the garment’s owner is given notice by mail.
If Del. Robinson’s new bill had passed, it would have been unclear which would take precedence — the law protecting drycleaners and other artisans from consumers, or the new
one which expanded consumer rights.
During the hearing of HB 776, Del. Robinson was the only witness to testify in
favor of it. She told The Washington Post that many cleaners, particularly
Koreans, have misunderstood the motivation behind the bill.
“They see it as me picking on Koreans,” she said. “They see it as me saying they’re responsible for any damages. And that’s not what I’m saying.”
On the flip side of the issue, dozens of drycleaners showed up to voice their
opposition.
Chung K. Pak, who spoke on behalf of the Korean Dry Cleaners Association of
Maryland, was quoted in The Post as testifying: “It’s an additional burden, and this special protection is unnecessary.”
He also added that the bill “stigmatizes the drycleaning industry, which is already burdened by lawsuits.”
One such lawsuit made numerous headlines last year when DC Judge Roy Pearson
filed a claim seeking $54 million from Custom Cleaners for losing a pair of
dress slacks.
Eventually, a judge dismissed the case, saddling Pearson with tens of thousands
of dollars in legal fees. He also lost his job as the city commission that
reviews the performances of administrative law judges opted not to reappoint
him.
Soo and Jim Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners, did not fare much better. The
couple sold two of their three cleaning plants during their lengthy and
expensive court ordeal.
