SCS 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."
00SENATE CS FOR CS 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; 19 (3) in resolving year 2000 date change related disputes, the parties rely on a 20 valid and enforceable contract, and that the provisions of this Act are inapplicable when a 21 provision would supersede, intervene, or change a contractual obligation or provision; 22 (4) if a party is unsuccessful in asserting the year 2000 date change defenses 23 created in this Act, nothing in this Act would preclude a court or jury from awarding 24 compensatory or punitive damages as provided by law; 25 (5) if a party to a contract uses reasonable care to prevent or remedy year 2000 26 date change damages, the party not be liable for most civil damages resulting from the year 27 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) In a civil action based on a 31 contract, a business or a member of the board of directors of a business is not liable
01 for damages arising from the year 2000 date change and caused directly or indirectly 02 by a failure of an electronic computing device used in the business if the business 03 shows by a preponderance of the 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 based on a contract against a business, or member of the
01 board of directors of a business, for damages arising from the year 2000 date change 02 and caused directly or indirectly by a failure of an electronic computing device used 03 in the business may not be brought as a class action unless the aggregate claim of all 04 members of the class for economic loss exceeds $150,000. 05 (d) In a civil action based on a contract against a business, or member of the 06 board of directors of a business, for damages arising from the year 2000 date change 07 and caused directly or indirectly by a failure of an electronic computing device used 08 in the business, 09 (1) damages may not be awarded for noneconomic losses if the party 10 bringing the claim is unable to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the party 11 defending the claim knew, or should have known, that the failure of the electronic 12 computing device would cause the damages claimed in the civil action; 13 (2) the civil action may not proceed to trial until the person bringing 14 the action, if appropriate, 15 (A) provides, if able to do so, written notice to the business that 16 describes the failure of the mechanism that contains an electronic computing 17 device arising from the year 2000 date change; and 18 (B) gives the business the opportunity to fix the problem, 19 including reasonable access to electronic computing devices or software 20 affected by the failure described under (A) of this paragraph; 21 (3) a provision of this section that conflicts with a year 2000 date 22 change provision contained in a valid and enforceable contract between the parties to 23 the civil action may not be applied in that civil action. 24 (e) This section does not apply to a civil action against a business, or a 25 member of the board of directors of a business, for damages for personal injury or 26 wrongful death arising from the year 2000 date change and caused directly or 27 indirectly by a failure of an electronic computing device. 28 (f) In this section, 29 (1) "business" means a person or a for profit or a nonprofit entity 30 engaged in a trade, service, profession, or activity with the goal of receiving a financial 31 benefit in exchange for the provision of services, goods, or other property;
01 (2) "electronic computing device" includes any computer hardware or 02 software, a computer chip, an embedded chip, process control equipment, or other 03 information system that is used to capture, store, manipulate, or process data; 04 (3) "year 2000 date change" includes processing date or time data from, 05 into, and between the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries, and leap-year 06 calculations; in this paragraph, "processing" includes calculating, comparing, 07 sequencing, displaying, and storing. 08 * Sec. 3. AS 09.65.260 is repealed January 1, 2006. 09 * Sec. 4. AS 09.65.260(c), enacted by sec. 2 of this Act, has the effect of amending 10 Rule 23, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, by requiring, in a class action relating to the year 11 2000 date change, that the aggregate claim of all members of the class for economic loss 12 exceeds $150,000. 13 * Sec. 5. APPLICABILITY. This Act applies to a cause of action arising from any failure 14 described in AS 09.65.260, enacted by sec. 2 of this Act, that accrues on or after the effective 15 date of this Act but before January 1, 2006. 16 * Sec. 6. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).