§444-2 Exemptions. This chapter shall
not apply to:
(1) Officers and employees of the United States, the
State, or any county while in the performance of their governmental duties;
(2) Any person acting as a receiver, trustee in
bankruptcy, personal representative, or any other person acting under any order
or authorization of any court;
(3) A person who sells or installs any finished
products, materials, or articles of merchandise that are not actually
fabricated into and do not become a permanent fixed part of the structure, or
to the construction, alteration, improvement, or repair of personal property;
(4) Any project or operation for which the aggregate
contract price for labor and materials is not more than $1,500. This exemption
shall not apply in any case where a building permit is required regardless of
the aggregate contract price, nor where the undertaking is only a part of a
larger or major project or operation, whether undertaken by the same or a
different contractor or in which a division of the project or operation is made
in contracts of amounts not more than $1,500 for the purpose of evading this
chapter or otherwise;
(5) A registered architect or professional engineer
acting solely in the person's professional capacity;
(6) Any person who engages in the activities
regulated in this chapter as an employee with wages as the person's sole
compensation;
(7) Owner-builders exempted under section 444-2.5;
(8) Any joint venture if all members thereof hold
licenses issued under this chapter;
(9) Any project or operation where it is determined
by the board that less than ten persons are qualified to perform the work in
question and that the work does not pose a potential danger to public health,
safety, and welfare; or
(10) Any public works project that requires additional
qualifications beyond those established by the licensing law and which is
deemed necessary and in the public interest by the contracting agency. [L 1957,
c 305, §1(s 2); Supp, §166A-2; HRS §444-2; am L 1969, c 163, §1; am L 1974, c
112, §1(3); am L 1975, c 128, §1; am L 1976, c 200, pt of §1; am L 1985, c 215,
§1; gen ch 1985; am L 1986, c 182, §1; am L 1989, c 142, §2; am L 1992, c 258,
§1 and c 269, §2; am L 1996, c 172, §3; am L 2010, c 44, §3; am L 2019, c 283,
§2]
Case Notes
Defendant's motion to dismiss denied; because it was feasible
that plaintiff's actions constituted that of a "professional engineer
acting solely in [its] professional capacity", it was not apparent that
[this chapter] barred plaintiff from bringing lawsuit. 216 F. Supp. 2d 1133
(2001).
Promise by defendant to pay plaintiff for work performed and
moneys expended established an employment relationship and took matter outside
of chapter under paragraph (7). 58 H. 257, 567 P.2d 824 (1977).
While a member of the public who violates the owner-builder
exemption under paragraph (7) (1993) by selling or leasing the subject property
within one year of completion is subject to the sanctions imposed under
paragraph (7), that party is not precluded from enforcing the underlying
contract with an unlicensed contractor. 92 H. 117 (App.), 987 P.2d 1015 (1999).
Pursuant to paragraph (7), homeowners did not have the
benefit of, and, as to homeowners, contractor was not obligated to comply with,
the disclosure provisions of §444-25.5. 109 H. 96 (App.), 123 P.3d 691 (2005).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1977–2011 · leading case:
Jones v. Phillipson, 987 P.2d 1015 (Haw. App. 1999).
Jones v. Phillipson, 987 P.2d 1015 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 61× “]” However, HRS § 444-2 sets forth various exemptions to the operation of HRS chapter 444.”
Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 268 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 444-2(6) (Supp.2010). However, based on the evidence adduced as to the quantum me-ruit claim, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Wagner was providing services covered by HRS Chapter 444 that required a license.”
Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 40 P.3d 946 (Haw. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “We note that HRS § 444-2(7) (Supp.2000) provides an exemption from the contractor licensing requirements for [o]wners or lessees of property who build or improve residential, farm, industrial, or commercial buildings or structures on property for their own use, or for use by…”
Shultz v. Lujan, 948 P.2d 558 (Haw. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “” Hence, if Lu-jan was an employee, then HRS § 444-22 did not bar him from bringing suit, and the Shultzes were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Michely v. Honolulu, Ltd., 567 P.2d 824 (Haw. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Defendant initially contends that plaintiff’s lack of a contractor’s license at the time the work was performed bars him from recovery pursuant to the provisions of HRS § 444-22 (Supp.”
Scherer v. Contractors License Bd., 222 P.3d 466 (Haw. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Here, assuming the filing of a complaint with the CLB constituted a "civil action," Lundquist was exempt from the licensing requirements of Chapter 444, HRS § 444-2(7), and was compensated only for the cost of materials she purchased for remedial work.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 444-2(5) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 444-2(6) — 2 cases
Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 268 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2011).
“See HRS § 444-2(6) (Supp.2010). However, based on the evidence adduced as to the quantum me-ruit claim, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Wagner was providing services covered by HRS Chapter 444 that required a license.”
Shultz v. Lujan, 948 P.2d 558 (Haw. App. 1997).
“” Hence, if Lu-jan was an employee, then HRS § 444-22 did not bar him from bringing suit, and the Shultzes were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 444-2(7) — 4 cases
Jones v. Phillipson, 987 P.2d 1015 (Haw. App. 1999).
“]” However, HRS § 444-2 sets forth various exemptions to the operation of HRS chapter 444.”
Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 40 P.3d 946 (Haw. App. 2001).
“We note that HRS § 444-2(7) (Supp.2000) provides an exemption from the contractor licensing requirements for [o]wners or lessees of property who build or improve residential, farm, industrial, or commercial buildings or structures on property for their own use, or for use by…”
Michely v. Honolulu, Ltd., 567 P.2d 824 (Haw. 1977).
“Defendant initially contends that plaintiff’s lack of a contractor’s license at the time the work was performed bars him from recovery pursuant to the provisions of HRS § 444-22 (Supp.”
Scherer v. Contractors License Bd., 222 P.3d 466 (Haw. App. 2010).
“Here, assuming the filing of a complaint with the CLB constituted a "civil action," Lundquist was exempt from the licensing requirements of Chapter 444, HRS § 444-2(7), and was compensated only for the cost of materials she purchased for remedial work.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.