CSHB 82(JUD): "An Act relating to certain claims arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; amending Rule 23, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
00CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 82(JUD) 01 "An Act relating to certain claims arising out of or in connection with the year 02 2000 date change; amending Rule 23, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and 03 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) the majority of responsible business enterprises in Alaska are committed 07 to working in cooperation with their contracting partners towards the timely and cost-effective 08 resolution of the many technological, business, and legal issues associated with the year 2000 09 date change; 10 (2) it is important to encourage businesses to concentrate their attention and 11 resources in the short time remaining before January 1, 2000, on addressing, assessing, 12 remediating, and testing their year 2000 date change problems, and to minimize any possible 13 business disruptions associated with year 2000 date change issues; 14 (3) it is appropriate for the legislature to enact legislation to ensure that year
01 2000 date change problems do not unnecessarily disrupt state commerce or create unnecessary 02 caseloads in the courts and to provide initiatives to help businesses prepare and be in a 03 position to withstand the potentially devastating economic affect of the year 2000 date change; 04 (4) year 2000 date change issues potentially affect practically all business 05 enterprises to at least some degree, possibly giving rise to a large number of disputes; 06 (5) resorting to the legal system for resolution of year 2000 date change 07 problems is not feasible for many businesses, particularly small businesses, because of the 08 complexity and expense of pursuing resolution through the legal system; 09 (6) the delays, expense, uncertainties, loss of control, adverse publicity, and 10 animosities that frequently accompany litigation of business disputes can only exacerbate the 11 difficulties associated with the year 2000 date change and work against the successful 12 resolution of those difficulties. 13 (b) It is the intent of the legislature that 14 (1) this Act encourage businesses to approach their year 2000 date change 15 disputes responsibly and to avoid unnecessary, time-consuming, and costly litigation about 16 year 2000 date change related failures, particularly those that are not material; 17 (2) good faith negotiations occur between parties when there is a dispute over 18 a year 2000 date change problem, and that, if necessary, the parties enter into voluntary, 19 nonbinding mediation rather than litigation; 20 (3) in resolving year 2000 date change related disputes, the parties rely on a 21 valid and enforceable contract, and that the provisions of this Act are inapplicable when a 22 provision would supersede, intervene, or change a contractual obligation or provision; 23 (4) if a party is unsuccessful in asserting the year 2000 date change defenses 24 created in this Act, nothing in this Act would preclude a court or jury from awarding 25 compensatory or punitive damages as provided by law; 26 (5) if a party uses reasonable care to prevent or remedy year 2000 date change 27 damages, the party not be liable for civil damages resulting from the year 2000 date change. 28 * Sec. 2. AS 09.65 is amended by adding a new section to read: 29 Sec. 09.65.260. Claims against persons engaged in business arising out of 30 or in connection with the year 2000 date change. (a) A business or a member of 31 the board of directors of a business is not liable for damages arising from the year
01 2000 date change and caused directly or indirectly by a failure of an electronic 02 computing device used in the business if the business shows by a preponderance of the 03 evidence that 04 (1) the business made substantial efforts to avoid the damages claimed 05 in the civil action, such as 06 (A) inventorying the electronic computing devices used by the 07 business that may experience year 2000 date change failures; 08 (B) identifying critical electronic computing devices necessary 09 to conduct the operations of the business; 10 (C) identifying the potential for year 2000 date change failures 11 associated with electronic computing devices used by the business; 12 (D) preparing a plan to reprogram, fix, repair, replace, or 13 otherwise remedy the electronic computing devices necessary to avert failure 14 resulting from the year 2000 date change; 15 (E) complying with generally accepted practices of a business 16 sector related to the year 2000 date change, including testing information 17 systems for compliance with the year 2000 date change; and 18 (F) developing contingency plans in the event of an electronic 19 computing device failure; or 20 (2) the business used reasonable care to prevent or remedy damages 21 arising from the year 2000 date change and caused directly or indirectly by a failure 22 of an electronic computing device. 23 (b) The defense in (a) of this section may not be asserted by a business that 24 develops or manufactures software, firmware, microcode, hardware, or embedded 25 microchips that create, read, write, calculate, compare, sequence, or otherwise process 26 data that consists of dates, times, or both dates and time if the business represented 27 that the software, firmware, microcode, hardware, or microchips were year 2000 date 28 change compliant. This subsection does not apply to a business that only sells, rents, 29 or leases software, firmware, microcode, or hardware that is developed or 30 manufactured by another person. 31 (c) A civil action against a business, or member of the board of directors of
01 a business, for damages arising from the year 2000 date change and caused directly 02 or indirectly by a failure of an electronic computing device used in the business may 03 not be brought as a class action unless each member of the class has a claim for 04 economic loss that exceeds $50,000. 05 (d) In a civil action against a business, or member of the board of directors of 06 a business, for damages arising from the year 2000 date change and caused directly 07 or indirectly by a failure of an electronic computing device used in the business, 08 (1) damages may not be awarded for noneconomic losses if the party 09 (A) defending against the claim proves by a preponderance of 10 the evidence that it acted in good faith and took measures that were reasonable 11 under the circumstances to prevent the failure of the electronic computing 12 device from occurring or from causing the damages upon which the claim is 13 based; or 14 (B) bringing the claim is unable to prove by clear and 15 convincing evidence that the party defending the claim knew, or should have 16 known, that the failure of the electronic computing device would cause the 17 damages claimed in the civil action; 18 (2) the civil action may not proceed to trial until the person bringing 19 the action 20 (A) provides written notice to the business that describes the 21 failure of the electronic computing device arising from the year 2000 date 22 change; and 23 (B) gives the business the opportunity to fix the problem, 24 including reasonable access to electronic computing devices or software 25 affected by the failure described under (A) of this paragraph; 26 (3) the civil action must be submitted to mediation conducted under the 27 Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, unless all the parties agree to waive mediation; 28 (4) a provision of this section that conflicts with a provision contained 29 in a valid and enforceable contract between the parties to the civil action may not be 30 applied in that civil action. 31 (e) In this section,
01 (1) "business" means a person or a for profit or a nonprofit entity 02 engaged in a trade, service, profession, or activity with the goal of receiving a financial 03 benefit in exchange for the provision of services, goods, or other property; 04 (2) "electronic computing device" includes any computer hardware or 05 software, a computer chip, an embedded chip, process control equipment, or other 06 information system that is used to capture, store, manipulate, or process data; 07 (3) "year 2000 date change" includes processing date or time data from, 08 into, and between the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries, and leap-year 09 calculations; in this paragraph, "processing" includes calculating, comparing, 10 sequencing, displaying, and storing. 11 * Sec. 3. AS 09.65.260 is repealed January 1, 2006. 12 * Sec. 4. AS 09.65.260(c), enacted by sec. 2 of this Act, has the effect of amending 13 Rule 23, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, by requiring, in a class action relating to the year 14 2000 date change, that each member of the class have a claim for economic loss that exceeds 15 $50,000. 16 * Sec. 5. APPLICABILITY. This Act applies to a cause of action arising from any failure 17 described in AS 09.65.260, enacted by sec. 2 of this Act, that accrues on or after the effective 18 date of this Act but before January 1, 2006. 19 * Sec. 6. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).