CSHB 57(JUD): "An Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state or a municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either, arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and providing for an effective date."
00CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 57(JUD) 01 "An Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state or a 02 municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either, arising out of or in 03 connection with the year 2000 date change; and providing for an effective date." 04 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 05 * Section 1. FINDINGS AND INTENT. (a) The legislature finds that 06 (1) for decades, business and government computer programmers around the 07 world generally saved expensive data storage space and data entry time by storing the year 08 as two digits instead of four; for example, 1900 would likely have been entered as 00; 09 (2) as a result of the storing practice, many mainframe and personal computers, 10 software of all kinds, and traffic control, medical, and other equipment that has a 11 microprocessor interpret "00" as the year 1900 rather than the year 2000, and many of these 12 systems may fail or cause errors for years beyond 1999; 13 (3) the year 2000 date change creates an unparalleled challenge to state and 14 municipal government operations, and its effect is imminent, affecting some electronic
01 computing devices well before December 31, 1999; 02 (4) exhaustive state preventative efforts in accordance with the governor's 03 directives are presently underway to identify, test, and develop contingency plans for state 04 government operations, prioritizing first for mission-critical systems, to provide uninterrupted 05 public services; 06 (5) even with the best efforts using the appropriations and personnel resources 07 available to state and municipal governments and with due diligence, the magnitude and the 08 depth of systems affected by the year 2000 date change throughout state and local government 09 operations likely make it impossible to foresee and prevent all failures due to the date change; 10 (6) extensive civil actions based on year 2000 date change failures are 11 anticipated in many areas of general commerce and industry; and 12 (7) it is in the public interest that the state apply its limited resources to 13 remediation efforts related to this important year 2000 date change rather than to the costs of 14 litigation. 15 (b) It is the intent of this Act 16 (1) to recognize that it is a complex and difficult challenge to prepare state and 17 municipal government agency-owned, operated, and inspected electronic devices for the year 18 2000; 19 (2) to acknowledge that due diligence by state and municipal government is 20 being used to provide uninterrupted public services to the people of Alaska; 21 (3) to appreciate that even the due diligence described in (2) of this subsection 22 may not suffice to prevent system failures of those public services; 23 (4) to ensure that a person's right to receive mandated services or entitlements 24 authorized under state law or municipal ordinance is not interpreted to be interfered with by 25 this Act; and 26 (5) not to prevent a person from seeking recourse through existing 27 administrative procedure provided by state law or municipal ordinance to obtain services or 28 entitlements even though this Act precludes the award of compensation for consequences of 29 a failure described in this Act. 30 * Sec. 2. AS 09.50 is amended by adding a new section to read: 31 Sec. 09.50.255. Immunity for claims against the state arising out of or in
01 connection with the year 2000 date change. (a) Notwithstanding any contrary 02 provisions of AS 09.50.250, an action in connection with the year 2000 date change 03 may not be brought against the state, or against an agent, officer, or employee of the 04 state for an act or omission occurring in the scope of that person's employment or 05 work for the state, (1) for damages caused directly or indirectly by a failure of an 06 electronic computing device owned, controlled, or operated by the state, or (2) arising 07 out of an inspection or review of an electronic computing device owned, controlled, 08 or operated by others. The immunity described in this subsection does not apply if the 09 affected party shows by clear and convincing evidence that the state did not use good 10 faith efforts to avoid the failure that caused the damages claimed in the civil action. 11 For purposes of this subsection, the state used good faith efforts as a matter of law if 12 the state made efforts to identify, test, and develop contingency plans for critical 13 systems. 14 (b) This section does not affect immunity provided to the state under another 15 provision of law. 16 (c) In this section, 17 (1) "electronic computing device" includes computer hardware or 18 software, a computer chip, an embedded chip, process control equipment, or other 19 information system that is used to capture, store, manipulate, or process data, or that 20 controls, monitors, or assists in the operation of a physical apparatus that is not 21 primarily used as a computer but that relies on automation or digital technology to 22 function; 23 (2) "physical apparatus that is not primarily used as a computer" 24 includes a vehicle, a vessel, a building, a structure, a facility, an elevator, medical 25 equipment, a traffic signal, machinery, access controls, and similar types of items; 26 (3) "state" includes a department, institution, board, commission, 27 division, authority, public corporation, council, committee, or other instrumentality of 28 the state, including the University of Alaska; 29 (4) "year 2000 date change" includes processing date or time data from, 30 into, and between calendar year 1999 and calendar year 2000, and leap-year 31 calculations; in this paragraph, "processing" includes calculating, comparing,
01 sequencing, displaying, and storing. 02 * Sec. 3. AS 09.65.070(d) is amended to read: 03 (d) An action for damages may not be brought against a municipality or any 04 of its agents, officers, or employees if the claim 05 (1) is based on a failure of the municipality, or its agents, officers, or 06 employees, when the municipality is neither owner nor lessee of the property involved, 07 (A) to inspect property for a violation of any statute, regulation, 08 or ordinance, or a hazard to health or safety; 09 (B) to discover a violation of any statute, regulation, or 10 ordinance, or a hazard to health or safety if an inspection of property is made; 11 or 12 (C) to abate a violation of any statute, regulation, or ordinance, 13 or a hazard to health or safety discovered on property inspected; 14 (2) is based on [UPON] the exercise or performance or the failure to 15 exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty by a municipality , or its agents, 16 officers, or employees, whether or not the discretion involved is abused; 17 (3) is based on [UPON] the grant, issuance, refusal, suspension, delay, 18 or denial of a license, permit, appeal, approval, exception, variance, or other 19 entitlement, or a rezoning; 20 (4) is based on the exercise or performance during the course of 21 gratuitous extension of municipal services on an extraterritorial basis; 22 (5) is based on [UPON] the exercise or performance of a duty or 23 function upon the request of, or by the terms of an agreement or contract with, the 24 state to meet emergency public safety requirements; [OR] 25 (6) is based on the exercise or performance of a duty in connection 26 with an enhanced 911 emergency system and is not based on an intentional act of 27 misconduct or on an act of gross negligence ; or 28 (7) is caused directly or indirectly by a failure, in connection with 29 the year 2000 date change, of an electronic computing device owned, controlled, 30 or operated by the municipality, or by an agent, officer, or employee of the 31 municipality and occurring in the scope of that person's employment or work for
01 the municipality; the immunity described in this paragraph does not apply if the 02 affected party shows by clear and convincing evidence that the municipality did 03 not use good faith efforts to avoid the failure that caused the damages claimed in 04 the civil action; for purposes of this paragraph, the municipality used good faith 05 efforts as a matter of law if the municipality made efforts to identify, test, and 06 develop contingency plans for critical systems; this paragraph does not affect 07 immunity provided to a municipality under another provision of law . 08 * Sec. 4. AS 09.65.070(e) is amended by adding new paragraphs to read: 09 (3) "electronic computing device" includes computer hardware or 10 software, a computer chip, an embedded chip, process control equipment, or other 11 information system that is used to capture, store, manipulate, or process data, or that 12 controls, monitors, or assists in the operation of a physical apparatus that is not 13 primarily used as a computer but that relies on automation or digital technology to 14 function; 15 (4) "physical apparatus that is not primarily used as a computer" 16 includes a vehicle, a vessel, a building, a structure, a facility, an elevator, medical 17 equipment, a traffic signal, machinery, access controls, and similar types of items; 18 (5) "year 2000 date change" includes processing date or time data from, 19 into, and between calendar year 1999 and calendar year 2000, and leap year 20 calculations; in this paragraph, "processing" includes calculating, comparing, 21 sequencing, displaying, and storing. 22 * Sec. 5. AS 09.50.255; AS 09.65.070(d)(7), 09.65.070(e)(3), 09.65.070(e)(4), and 23 09.65.070(e)(5) are repealed January 1, 2006. 24 * Sec. 6. APPLICABILITY. This Act applies to all actions for damages arising from any 25 failure described in AS 09.50.255, enacted by sec. 2 of this Act, or AS 09.65.070(d)(7), 26 enacted by sec. 3 of this Act, in connection with the year 2000 date change occurring on or 27 after the effective date of this Act but before January 1, 2006. 28 * Sec. 7. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).