Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/03/1995 01:13 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 3, 1995                                         
                           1:13 p.m.                                           
                                                                               
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
                                                                               
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Bettye Davis                                                   
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Cynthia Toohey                                                 
 Representative David Finkelstein                                              
                                                                               
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
                                                                               
 All members present                                                           
                                                                               
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
                                                                               
 HB 158:   "An Act relating to civil actions; amending Alaska Rules            
           of Civil Procedure 49, 68, and 95; amending Alaska Rule             
           of Evidence 702; and providing for an effective date."              
                                                                               
 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                     
                                                                               
 *HB 150:  "An Act relating to receipts for bail forfeited in                  
           satisfaction for certain offenses."                                 
                                                                               
           SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                             
                                                                               
 *HB 151:  "An Act relating to magistrate jurisdiction in                      
           presumptive death proceedings."                                     
                                                                               
           SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                             
                                                                               
 *HB 153:  "An Act relating to the surety bond for certain judicial            
           officers."                                                          
                                                                               
           SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                             
                                                                               
 (* First Public Hearing)                                                      
                                                                               
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
                                                                               
 CONNIE ADAMSON                                                                
 P.O. Box 353                                                                  
 Sutton, AK 99674                                                              
 Telephone:  (907) 745-1816                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 158                                           
                                                                               
 DAN MIDDAUGH, Alaska Health Project                                           
 1818 West Northern Lights Boulevard, No. 102                                  
 Anchorage, AK 99517                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 276-2864                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 158                                           
                                                                               
 STEVE CONN, Executive Director                                                
 Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG)                                
 P.O. Box 101093                                                               
 Anchorage, AK 99510                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 278-3661                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 158                                           
                                                                               
 RHONDA SCOTT                                                                  
 3866 Helvetia Drive                                                           
 Anchorage, AK 99508                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 561-4959                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 158                                           
                                                                               
 DIXIE ALMS, Public School Speech Pathologist                                  
 P.O. Box 210272                                                               
 Auke Bay, AK 99821                                                            
 Telephone:  (907) 790-2286                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on HB 158                                      
                                                                               
 JIM FORBES, Assistant Attorney General                                        
 Fair Business Practices Section                                               
 Civil Division                                                                
 Department of Law                                                             
 1031 West 4th Avenue, No. 200                                                 
 Anchorage, AK  99501                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 269-5222                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 158                           
                                                                               
 MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Attorney                                                   
 State Farm Insurance Company                                                  
 One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 303                                                 
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907) 586-5912                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 158                           
                                                                               
 DANIELLA LOPER, Administrative Assistant                                      
  to Representative Brian Porter                                               
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 118                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3940                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 158                           
                                                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 158                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: CIVIL LIABILITY                                                  
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER, Toohey                                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/06/95       253    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/06/95       253    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 02/17/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/20/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/20/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/27/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/01/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 03/01/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/03/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 150                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: RECEIPTS FOR BAIL FORFEITURES                                    
 SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST                                              
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/03/95       236    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/03/95       236    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 03/03/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 151                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: MAGISTRATE PRESUMPTIVE DEATH JURISDICTION                        
 BILL VERSION:                                                                 
 SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST                                              
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/03/95       236    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/03/95       236    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 03/03/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 153                                                             
 SHORT TITLE: BONDS FOR JUDGES                                                 
 SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST                                              
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/03/95       236    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/03/95       236    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 03/03/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
                                                                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-21, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:13            
 p.m. on Friday, March 3, 1995.  A quorum was present.                         
                                                                               
 HJUD - 03/03/95                                                               
 HB 158 CIVIL LIABILITY                                                      
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that HB 158 would be the only bill               
 heard.  The committee had concluded the public hearing on                     
 Wednesday, but because they had anticipated it might go through               
 Friday, a few people were told they did not have to testify on                
 Wednesday, but could do so on Friday.  Those few people were called           
 on to testify.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 040                                                                    
                                                                               
 CONNIE ADAMSON, Sutton Resident, testified via teleconference.  She           
 said she is totally against any type of tort reform that does not             
 provide the plaintiff the same opportunities as the defense.  She             
 feared tort reform would take away rights of the plaintiffs'                  
 attorneys to access information from the defense counsel.                     
                                                                               
 Number 055                                                                    
                                                                               
 DAN MIDDAUGH, Alaska Health Project, testified via teleconference,            
 objecting to the bill as it is presently written.  He did not                 
 believe it was fair and reasonable.  Both the plaintiff and the               
 defense have the right to real and definable recompense in cases              
 involving accidents.  He thought this bill would be against the               
 better interest of the majority of Alaskans.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 077                                                                    
                                                                               
 STEVE CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research               
 Group (AKPIRG), testified via teleconference.  The subject of tort            
 reform is of interest to him both as Executive Director of AKPIRG             
 and also, for many years, as a Professor of Justice, at the                   
 Criminal Justice Center where Representative Porter was a mentor.             
 It was no surprise to him to see another attempt to adjust the                
 system of civil litigation; however, the benefits of these changes            
 are essentially unproven.  The impact of the changes previously               
 made to civil litigation should be looked at.  These changes affect           
 every aspect of the civil litigation system, as well as the                   
 malpractice insurance rates.  AKPIRG did a study on the first                 
 version of tort reform which led to our present workers'                      
 compensation system.  They also examined our present day system,              
 finding it to be a disaster and a failure that serves no one's best           
 interest.  It allows litigation to occur when it should not.  The             
 bill focuses change in the wrong direction.                                   
                                                                               
 Number 215                                                                    
                                                                               
 RHONDA SCOTT testified via teleconference.  She felt the present              
 system was fair and that capping punitive damages does not send the           
 necessary message to the wrongdoer.  She described an example where           
 Ford motor company was sued, and the punitive damages awarded in              
 the case equaled one month's profits for the company.  This was a             
 punishment severe enough to sting them.  To save money, Ford                  
 knowingly built a dangerous car they knew would result in people              
 being killed.  A punitive damage cap would not have allowed a                 
 punitive damage award large enough to give them the right message.            
 This cap implies that a jury is not capable of making good                    
 decisions.  The cap needs to be large enough to give a company the            
 incentive to change.  She also expressed that half of the award               
 should not go to the state's general fund.  Why should the state              
 profit from someone else's personal lawsuit?                                  
                                                                               
 Number 335                                                                    
                                                                               
 DIXIE ALMS, Public School Speech Pathologist, understood the                  
 committee would be talking about product liability.  She came to              
 talk about DES, which is a drug used with women from the early                
 1940s until 1971.                                                             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER told her product liability is out of the bill.  He            
 then clarified that it is not clearly out of the bill yet, but he             
 was prepared to offer an amendment making it painfully clear                  
 product liability is out of the bill.                                         
                                                                               
 MS. ALMS said she would hold her testimony until it was necessary.            
                                                                               
 Number 355                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN argued that 90 percent of the                
 provisions in the bill will still apply to product liability.  Only           
 one section, the statute of repose, is where the exemption is.  He            
 then asked Jim Forbes, who was on line for testimony via                      
 teleconference, if there was a more recent letter than March 8,               
 1994, which would outline the position of the department.                     
                                                                               
 JIM FORBES, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices               
 Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via                     
 teleconference.  He answered there is nothing more recent with                
 specific regard to HB 158.                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN was interested in the views of the                 
 Department of Law on many sections of this bill.  He asked Mr.                
 Forbes to go through the sections of the bill, outlining the                  
 constitutional problems or potential problems which would conflict            
 with court rules; or just practical problems in his experience that           
 exist.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 390                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES summarized it.  The analysis they did last year showed,            
 in large part, that the bill had constitutional flaws.  The bill is           
 dealing with the right of the average citizen to access the court             
 system, and to be compensated for injuries.  On the average, tort             
 reform does not have the effect of reducing insurance rates.                  
 Insurance rates are effected more by the investments the insurance            
 companies make, and do not really have that much to do with the               
 types of tort reforms that have been adopted from state to state.             
 One out of every 500 Americans lives in Alaska, and insurance                 
 premiums are scheduled primarily on a national basis.  He finds               
 this bill unconstitutional, simply because it would not reduce                
 those insurance rates.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 470                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to Sections 5 and 3 relating to           
 the separate treatment for minors.  What part of this section                 
 reflects the reasoning behind existing law?  Is it because of the             
 inability of minors to speak for themselves?  What are the existing           
 laws involving minors?                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 495                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES said he was not an expert in children's cases.  Courts             
 have said that if a party does not have the right to bring a claim            
 on their own behalf, it is a violation of the fundamental right of            
 due process to deny them the right to bring a cause of action.  For           
 this year's bill, he was fairly confident that would be a major               
 consideration by the courts.                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if these sections would extinguish           
 the existing right of minors to due process.                                  
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES answered that the minor must depend upon a parent or               
 guardian to bring the claim; since the minor does not have the                
 capacity to bring the claim on his or her own behalf.  These rights           
 are extinguished if the parent is neglectful or unwilling to bring            
 the child's claim forward to the court.  The courts would have a              
 great deal of difficulty with that provision the way it is written.           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked whether the conflict described was           
 a court case based on interpretation of statutes, or on the                   
 constitution.                                                                 
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES explained that prisoners, in the past, did not have the            
 right to bring civil claims.  In a case where a prisoner was                  
 injured even before he went into prison, he could not file a                  
 lawsuit while incarcerated, because his right did not exist.  To              
 invoke the statute of limitations against that prisoner would                 
 violate the due process provision of the Alaska Constitution.                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if Alaskan decisions on punitive             
 damages have been excessive; and if these excessive decisions are             
 the target of this legislation.  He asked if there was a way to get           
 the number of cases awarding over $300,000.                                   
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES said someone in the Court System would know those                  
 figures.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Forbes if he had run across              
 many cases where there are large awards for punitive damages, in              
 state court.                                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES said he had run across a few cases with very large                 
 punitive damage awards; but, in reality, you do not hear of many of           
 them being upheld.                                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would like to get statistics for           
 Alaska state cases involving large punitive damage awards.                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said in the last large case he recalled, the appeal           
 was denied, and the award was upheld.  it was a $4.5 million                  
 punitive damage award to an Alaskan company just a couple of weeks            
 ago.  It is happening.                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN was not doubting that it is happening,             
 he just wanted to know the totality of this category.                         
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the totality of the category is not the                  
 problem.  The problem is the exposure that businesses have to the             
 perhaps infrequent occurrence of that exposure, which it has to be            
 insured against.  The insurance company has to recognize that there           
 is a risk, and they probably factor the odds of the risk into the             
 calculation of premiums.  But if the rare occurrence happens to               
 fall upon their client, it has to be insured against.  That is the            
 problem.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed that is a problem, but it is not            
 the one and only problem.  There is also the problem of making sure           
 companies and individuals that operate in the state of Alaska, who            
 act with reckless disregard for the interests of our citizens, are            
 punished when appropriate.  While an anecdote or two may make the             
 case for one point; the point he was trying to make can only be               
 made by looking at the whole picture.  How often are these actually           
 applied?  Are these taken as a whole category, such that we would             
 agree that punitive damages are appropriate?  He wished to find               
 some way of achieving this information before the bill reached the            
 next committee.  It is very important information as to what has              
 happened.  We are trying to solve a problem here; not just with               
 punitive damages, but in every section.  We ought to know how often           
 these kinds of things occur in Alaska, and what the circumstances             
 have been; because it may make your case, and it may make my case.            
                                                                               
 Number 650                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Forbes about periodic payments           
 in Section 10.  How do they fit into whatever IRS exemption exists?           
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the amendment he would be offering later makes           
 it clear that if we changed the existing federal damage award tax             
 exemption, then obviously, we would not want to reduce the award by           
 that amount.                                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he agreed, that in the case of                
 periodic payments, he understood a lump sum payment to be clearly             
 exempt.  Periodic payments are not necessarily exempt.  Do we have            
 any information that says periodic payments are exempt under                  
 existing law?  Because if they are not necessarily exempt, then we            
 are, in fact, deducting taxes from them.                                      
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER understood compensatory damage awards to be tax               
 exempt.  He did not think making the payments periodically, would             
 automatically place them back into the taxable category.                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if Mr. Forbes had experience in              
 this.                                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES said no.                                                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said this is not a matter of state law.            
 This is a matter of what the IRS standards are.  He said he would             
 like information on periodic payments, and how and if they fit into           
 tax exemption.                                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER thought the amendment would cover that.                       
                                                                               
 Number 690                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Forbes' views on the issue of            
 collateral benefits, and what gets introduced into the jury system.           
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES answered, not having done extensive research on it, the            
 law considers that insurance issues are something that should not             
 be considered by the jury when trying to determine economic                   
 damages.  For that reason, there has been a rule for a long time              
 that a plaintiff cannot introduce evidence showing that the                   
 defendant has insurance to pay a claim.  This evidence may cause a            
 jury to focus on something other than the actual damages that have            
 been proven in the case.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 715                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about Section 14, regarding                  
 distribution of fault and inclusion of parties that are not in the            
 lawsuit.  If you name a party that is protected somehow or other,             
 like the state, in regard to workers' compensation cases; or if it            
 is some party that just does not exist for one reason or other, say           
 they have disappeared from the scene, or cannot be reached; what              
 happens if the state is all of a sudden a party to these cases?               
 Does the state defend itself?  How does it actually work when you             
 have three or four defendants, and one or two of them are                     
 participating in the case, in terms of being named, but do not have           
 anything at risk?                                                             
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES said the party being sued has rights to name another               
 party who they believe to be at fault.  The trial would be more               
 unbalanced if the person was not available to defend himself or               
 herself.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 790                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to Section 21, regarding the              
 expert witness qualification, and asked if retired doctors were               
 being excluded?                                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said it depends on how long ago the doctor retired,           
 and whether or not he/she is still involved in any teaching or                
 practicing.  The idea is that a court and jury wants to get                   
 information that is as current as possible.  Some doctors quit                
 practicing to become medical testimony experts, and spend 10 to 15            
 years in this endeavor, without having the benefit of updating                
 their medical knowledge or information.  What this section is                 
 attempting to do, is to make sure the courts and juries get current           
 information from the expert witnesses.                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt this exclusionary provision would             
 only allow people to be expert witnesses if they did not have spare           
 time on their hands, and therefore, would not really be available             
 to testify.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY stated she has to take medical                  
 classes all the time to keep up to date.  Someone who is unaware of           
 the evolving medical developments, does not realize it is changing            
 daily.  Unless you are involved with it daily, or doing some                  
 extensive studying, you are not going to be qualified to do                   
 anything.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked who fits into the category of                
 being certified by a board.  Are those people who are making a                
 living being expert witnesses, certified?  Do they fit into number            
 (2) at the top of page 13?                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER thought number (3) was more relevant to what                  
 Representative Finkelstein was asking.  That is a qualification on            
 currency; saying that within a year of the date of the alleged                
 occurrence giving rise to the claim, the expert witness was an                
 active health care provider, or devoted a substantial portion of              
 time teaching in an accredited school.                                        
                                                                               
 Number 850                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about the new definition of                  
 professional negligence.  It sounds like a critical definition.  A            
 lot of medical cases seem to revolve around negligence.  What is              
 the existing standard?  What about someone who simply fails to                
 render services?  Will that group be excluded by this definition?             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he presumed the current standard was listed in           
 case law as opposed to current statute.  What we are trying to do             
 here, is list it in statute, so we know what we are talking about.            
 He could not imagine a situation that would not be covered under              
 this definition.  This is not a restrictive definition, it is                 
 totally expansive.  It refers to a negligent act or omission by a             
 health care provider in rendering professional services.  That                
 covers everything.                                                            
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-21, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN feared this definition could be                    
 interpreted another way.  Someone could argue they were not                   
 involved in negligence because they were not rendering any                    
 professional services.                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Mr. Forbes if he recommended putting no           
 caps for pain and suffering on auto liability policies.                       
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES understood the Administration has a policy concern about           
 limiting access to the court system by ordinary Alaskans.  Along              
 those lines, a $300,000 cap will deny certain middle class, or                
 ordinary Alaskans, access to the courts when they are injured. As             
 it relates to automobile accidents, he would give those separate              
 considerations, because minimum insurance requirements are the                
 legislature's determination on what you have to do to prove you are           
 a responsible individual, capable of responsibly operating a car on           
 highways.  The $300,000 cap would certainly discourage some people            
 from making a claim.                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY assumed Mr. Forbes did not want to put a cap            
 on these policies.                                                            
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES did not feel a cap would be unreasonable; but let's face           
 it, $300,000 is not what it used to be.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 090                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if, under our current system, two                 
 people were injured; one is injured by a person with automobile               
 coverage of $100,000; and the other is injured by a driver of a               
 state truck; do they both collect the same amount for pain and                
 suffering?  Assume they have the exact same injuries.                         
                                                                               
 MR. FORBES said they probably would not collect the same amount.              
                                                                               
 Number 180                                                                    
                                                                               
 MIKE LESSMEIER, Attorney, State Farm Insurance Company, has done              
 almost exclusively trial work.  State Farm has approximately 32               
 percent of the automobile liability insurance market in the state,            
 and approximately 43 percent of the homeowners market.  He said               
 there are basically four purposes of tort reform.  One is to take             
 the windfalls that exist in our system, and try to eliminate them.            
 This bill does a good job of that.  The second purpose ought to be            
 to increase predictability, because the cases they are involved in            
 that cost the most to defend, and that cost the system the most,              
 are the cases that we cannot predict the result of.  Punitive                 
 damages is a good example of that, because what happens with                  
 punitive damages, is, when you ask about the awards, you see the              
 tip of the iceberg.  You do not see the number of cases that are              
 actually defended, that do not result in any awards.  That is a               
 tremendous cost to the system.  That is a policy issue you have to            
 decide, but it is an issue.  The third issue you ought to look at             
 is to clarify the intent of the voters, particularly with respect             
 to the 1988 initiative.  It is connected to the issue of                      
 predictability.  If you can reduce the amount of money spent on               
 both sides on attorneys, and put more money into the injured                  
 person's pocket, that is a wonderful goal, and that is what the               
 goal of tort reform ought to be.                                              
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER responded to some of the testimony.  He said State              
 Farm has a different viewpoint from Mr. Forbes, with respect to how           
 insurance companies set rates.  State Farm sets rates based on its            
 experience in Alaska.  He suspected the Division of Insurance would           
 take great issue with the statement that rates are based on                   
 investment income.  That is not an appropriate way to underwrite              
 insurance business, so if you looked at the malpractice carriers,             
 and the automobile insurance carriers, he thought you would find              
 that those rates are based on Alaska experience.  Alaska experience           
 is going to be directly affected by the changes you either choose             
 to make or do not choose to make in this bill.                                
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER also responded to the issue of access to the court              
 system, based on a cap.  He felt the issue of a cap was a policy              
 issue that everyone has to decide, but he did not see that as an              
 access issue.  Going by Representative Toohey's example, we                   
 currently require automobile insurance caps at $50,000, $100,000              
 and $25,000.  That has not reduced access to the tort system.  It             
 is almost inconceivable that there would be a case out there that             
 would have $300,000 of non-economic damages that would not warrant            
 an attorney taking it, because to get $300,000 of non-economic                
 damages, you are going to have some economic damages as well.                 
 Typically, you will find the economic awards to be at least equal             
 to, or higher than the non-economic award.  In California, there              
 has been a reduction in access to the court system because of the             
 cap they had.  The level of the cap is a policy issue.  You simply            
 need to decide how much predictability you want to have in your               
 system, because when you take the big exposure out of the system,             
 you are increasing predictability, and lowering the cost of                   
 litigation, the areas of dispute.  You probably have another                  
 benefit as well.  In a way, you increase access, because the very             
 same person Representative Toohey is talking about may be injured             
 by someone that has a higher level of insurance.  You might make              
 that level of insurance more available to people.  In that way, you           
 would give greater access to at least that level of coverage.  That           
 is one of the issues you have to think about, regardless of where             
 you draw the line.  Today we have a lottery system and this debate            
 has been going on for ten years.  We have a system of                         
 fortunate/unfortunates today.  They are unfortunate enough to be              
 seriously injured, but fortunate to be injured by someone who                 
 happens to be in the state of Alaska.  Would we be better off if we           
 had more people that had a certain level of coverage available?               
 That is really the issue.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 555                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked if the cost of insurance would                 
 decrease with the passage of this bill.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 560                                                                    
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER said in California, it took ten years to find that              
 the medical malpractice legislation was going to be effective.                
 They spent five years with the tort reform initiative before they             
 found out what the Supreme Court was going to do with it.  What you           
 will find, is if these provisions are effective immediately, that             
 means they will actually be effective with respect to cases that              
 arise after July 1 of 1996.  You will see a couple of years where             
 we continue to deal with cases that have arisen under the present             
 system of law.  Yes, you would see definite improvements if this              
 bill is passed.                                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the conclusion of the public testimony              
 portion of the hearing, and began introducing amendments.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS expressed that she felt there were                
 other ways some of these issues could be resolved rather than                 
 through this bill.  She understood it was not a victims' rights               
 bill, but would correct some concerns insurance companies and                 
 doctors might have; but she also felt they were eroding away some             
 benefits, or doing harm to those who cannot help themselves,                  
 particularly, children.  There is a portion of this bill that would           
 not be very good for them.  She had no problem with the section               
 that would do away with the windfalls, giving the system some                 
 predictability.  If litigation fees can be reduced, she had no                
 problem with that, either.  She did not feel that would really                
 happen, though.  She believed this bill would increase litigation             
 costs, because every time there are new regulations, there are                
 always new challenges.  If there is a problem with malpractice                
 insurance, could we not cap that?  Are there not other ways we can            
 solve some of these issues?                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted during the course of offering amendments,               
 there would be much debate and opportunity to discuss what we think           
 the bill will or will not do.                                                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt some portions of the bill would take away           
 responsibility from the wrongdoer; specifically taking                        
 responsibility away from hospitals and putting it back on the                 
 patient.  She said she had a problem with that.                               
                                                                               
 Number 640                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said there was an amendment that deals with that,             
 and they could debate it when it is offered.  He offered his first            
 amendment:                                                                    
                                                                               
      Page 4, lines 27-29, delete all materials and insert:                    
                                                                               
           "(1) the personal injury, death, or property damage                 
           resulted from                                                       
      (A) an intentional act or gross negligence;                              
      (B) fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation;                               
      (C) breach of an express warranty or guarantee; or                       
      (D) a defective product; in this subparagraph, "product"                 
          means an object that has intrinsic value, is capable of              
          delivery as an assembled whole or as a component part, and           
          is introduced into trade or commerce;"                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained this adds the things that are not                   
 intended to be within the statute of repose.  This provides that              
 product liability is not intended to be considered under the                  
 statute of repose.                                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY objected.  He did not understand why we               
 would not want to include product liability in the statute of                 
 repose.                                                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said he did not intend to support the amendments he           
 has seen so far, except these three.  The reason being, while some            
 of them are seeking to mitigate, compromise, and work things out;             
 we have spent two years on this bill, in that formative process.              
 If we go any further the bill will start to lose its capacity to              
 perform the goals we are seeking, which is reduction of rates and             
 costs that have been described.  Product liability within this                
 state affects a small population, because we do not have a lot of             
 manufacturing within the state of Alaska.  If that changes, and he            
 hopes it will, maybe we will want to revisit this, including                  
 product liability at that time.  But right now, there are just so             
 many battles he can fight.  That is why it is being excluded.                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY removed his objection.                                   
                                                                               
 Hearing no further objection or discussion, the amendment was                 
 adopted.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 730                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER described Amendment 2.  On Page 4, line 28, after             
 "from":                                                                       
                                                                               
 Insert:  "prolonged exposure to a hazardous waste,"                          
                                                                               
 This would actually become (A) of Amendment 1.                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that this applies to hazardous waste on             
 property you buy that goes undiscovered for more than eight years.            
 We are allowing that to be excluded from the statute of repose.               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move the amendment.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there was constant argument about             
 the definition of hazardous waste.  He felt they should use the               
 term "environmental discharge."                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected to the inclusion of the term                         
 "environmental discharge."                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked to be directed to the definition             
 of the term "hazardous waste."                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated it is in the federal register.                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted it was discussed last year and "hazardous               
 waste" is clearly defined in statute and in regulation.  You could            
 go one of two ways:  You could either try to specifically,                    
 absolutely define it, at taking the risk of leaving out something             
 that is subsequently discovered to be hazardous waste; or else                
 leave it open with the possibility that someone might try to get              
 out of it, by saying the substance is not hazardous waste; but then           
 lose the ability to take in things that develop later on.  If we              
 said this applies to only things presently defined in the statute             
 as hazardous waste, in ten years we will still be held to that                
 definition, while other substances should have been added to the              
 list.                                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2.  Hearing             
 no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER then offered Amendment 3.  On Page 8, line 17,                
 after "death":                                                                
                                                                               
 Insert "; this paragraph does not apply to economic damages                  
 that are subject to federal or state income taxes"                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move the amendment.                     
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that there were concerns about this.                
 While current law states that compensatory damage awards are not              
 taxable, what would happen if, for some reason, the federal law               
 changed, and they became taxable?  This section would address that            
 concern, as this paragraph does not apply to economic damages that            
 are subject to federal or state income taxes.                                 
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-22, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected to Amendment 3.  Would the economic             
 damages tax be subject only to state law?                                     
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said it refers to federal OR state tax.                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the bill says the amount of economic              
 damages awarded shall be reduced by the amount of federal and state           
 income tax that would be paid, and with this new amendment, that              
 exclusion would not apply if there was either a state or federal              
 income tax on the amendment, or both.  He felt the paragraph could            
 be reworded to refer to the amount that these taxes from which it             
 was exempt, would be reduced.  He was not sure we were saying what            
 was really intended there.                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if it would be more clear to say                  
 "federal AND/OR state income tax."                                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt the word should be "or", not "and".                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed adding the word "and" made it               
 worse.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 190                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER felt it was correct the way it was written.  He was           
 going to presume the bill drafter was right.  He made a motion to             
 move the amendment.  Hearing no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.           
                                                                               
 Number 210                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move Amendment 4, offered by            
 Representative Davis.  It would delete all material on page 1,                
 lines 9 through 11.                                                           
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for the purpose of discussion.                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the reason for her suggestion is because            
 no data has been presented indicating much of an increase in                  
 malpractice insurance premiums.  In fact, she has seen materials              
 showing those premiums are going down.                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER argued they did have testimony indicating insurance           
 rates in Alaska, as compared with other states, have risen                    
 outrageously.  Information is available to indicate that.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS heard that the information was based upon the            
 Alaska's economy.  We pay more for everything else here.  It has              
 nothing to do with anything but the cost of doing business in                 
 Alaska.                                                                       
                                                                               
 After no further discussion a roll call vote was taken.                       
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Vezey, Toohey, Green and Porter voted no.  The Amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 250                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS then moved her Amendment 5 which would delete            
 all material on page 2, lines 18 through 19.                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for discussion.                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt this would help to ensure that                      
 appropriate compensation would be available to people who are                 
 injured.  HB 158 will prevent injured people from recovering                  
 anything.  Many of the provisions will increase litigation.                   
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified, saying the belief that this legislation            
 would increase litigation has, to a degree, some merit; considering           
 there will be new provisions for attorneys to take a shot at.                 
 However, that does not make it not worth the effort of trying to              
 fix things that many people believe are broken.  Consequently, one            
 of the things that is broken is that patients are unable to obtain            
 compensation, because they are unable to afford insurance; and in             
 some cases, cannot afford to get their cases through the courts.              
 Some attorneys will not take cases unless the potential award is              
 significantly high.                                                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN argued under this bill, there would be             
 even much less money available to the attorneys, giving them even             
 less of an incentive to take cases.                                           
                                                                               
 There was a roll call vote taken on Amendment 5.  Representatives             
 Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives Bunde, Toohey,              
 Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment failed with a vote of two           
 to four.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 360                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved her next amendment, Amendment 6.  It               
 would change the statute of repose from 8 years to 12 years in two            
 places:  Page 4, line 16, and Page 4, line 19.                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt eight years was not quite a sufficient              
 amount of time.  Other state's statutes of repose vary.                       
                                                                               
 Number 390                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that a few other states have as little as           
 three years.  He read down a list very quickly:  4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3,            
 4, 5, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 7, and a couple of 10s.  He did not see any              
 twelves.  In 1986, Alaska passed a law to have a seven year statute           
 of repose.  The court had difficulty with that for other reasons.             
 He felt eight years was reasonable, and objected to the amendment.            
 He explained the problem with having twelve years is that a                   
 contractor would have to keep insurance long after he retired.                
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Finkelstein and Davis            
 voted yes.  Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter            
 voted no.  The amendment failed on a vote of two to five.                     
                                                                               
 Number 500                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved her next amendment, Amendment 7.  It               
 would delete all material on page 6, line 22, through page 7, line            
 16, (Section 6).  This would completely eliminate the non-economic            
 damages section.                                                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  He stated one of the goals is                      
 predictability and reasonableness in damages.  The $300,000 limit             
 is reasonable and obviously, predictable.  There are states which             
 have caps lower than this.                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN argued that non-economic damage awards             
 become very significant, for situations involving horrible                    
 disfigurements, etc.  It is loss of your life.                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the thing that is upsetting to him is that the           
 current attitude of so many people seems to be that money will make           
 up for someone's injury, and for them becoming a quadriplegic.                
 Once someone is a quadriplegic, there is no way to make him/her               
 whole.  That is life.                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS agreed they cannot be made whole, and money is           
 not everything, but money does help in situations when you do have            
 these kinds of injuries.                                                      
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER argued that a half a million dollars is a lot of              
 help.                                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted they seem to have lost sight of the fact           
 that no cap exists for economic damages.  The jury can make the               
 person whole to the greatest extent that money can make an                    
 individual whole.                                                             
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS also felt the juries could decide on non-                
 economic damage awards without having the caps.                               
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Finkelstein and Davis            
 voted yes.  Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter            
 voted no.  Amendment 7 failed on a vote two to five.                          
                                                                               
 Number 750                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved Amendment 8.  On page 8, line 19,                  
 replace the word "shall" with "may."  She felt the word "shall"               
 would place an extreme burden on the court system.                            
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the word "shall" would eliminate the           
 ability to protect against; if a court decided they wanted to, for            
 some reason; allowing periodic payments.  In most cases, this has             
 been the history; plaintiffs want their money up front, rather than           
 in periodic payments, even though they would have received, in                
 their normal life, that much money up front.  In those cases where            
 a court, for whatever reason they had elected not to do that; we              
 would run into the risk of having the loss of that money to the               
 defendant, over the period of time with which the payments would              
 have been spread.  Consequently, if they were seriously injured,              
 they would be more susceptible to becoming wards of the state.  For           
 that reason, he objected.                                                     
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-22, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 DANIELLA LOPER, Aide to Representative Porter, said that in states            
 that have periodic payments, some are discretionary and some are              
 mandatory.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 040                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, under Section 10, where it says "paid             
 in a lump sum," is there any question that will be paid by the                
 defendant?                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated it is only the amount that exceeds $100,000.           
 The only portion that would be considered for periodic payments, is           
 the amount of an award over $100,000.  So notwithstanding whatever            
 contingent fee arrangement the plaintiff had with his attorney, the           
 plaintiff would receive two thirds of $100,000 right up front, (if            
 the fee arrangement was 33 and 1/3 percent).  The plaintiff would             
 receive 2/3 of $100,000.  Then, the amount that is left to be                 
 spread for periodic payments, would be reduced by the 1/3 (if that            
 were the contingent fee arrangement); and then spread over the                
 period of time, so that he would get the benefit of some money in             
 the first year, and $66,000, plus.                                            
                                                                               
 Number 125                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said they should add the words "by the                   
 defendant", so that in the future, it will be obvious from the                
 language that that is where the funds are coming from.                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the hypothetical situation that caused              
 him grief is the case where a fellow gets a judgement for 1/2 of a            
 million dollars, and he gets $100,000 a year, and the attorney is             
 going to get a third of that, at present worth value, that would be           
 otherwise due the attorney who was representing this person.  It is           
 conceivable that over a five year period, present worth discount              
 would not be enough to discount that portion, so the guy ends up              
 owing money.                                                                  
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER clarified that that would never happen under this               
 bill. The reason being because you do not structure the entire                
 $500,000 dollars.  You would structure only the amount the person             
 is entitled to after they pay their attorney.  If the attorney has            
 a contingency agreement of a third, the attorney would take that              
 one third right off of the $500,000 thousand.                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative Green if he could think of               
 wording that would work for him, and he would ask Ms. Loper to work           
 with him on it.                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed to do that.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 210                                                                    
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Finkelstein and Davis            
 voted yes.  Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter            
 voted no.  The amendment failed on a vote of two to five.                     
                                                                               
 Number 225                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved Amendment 9, deleting all material on              
 page 8, lines 14 - 17, and inserting "Number (2), The amount of               
 federal and state income tax that would be paid on gross earnings             
 on the tax rate, in effect on the date of the injury or death may             
 be considered by the jury in awarding economic damages for loss of            
 past or future gross earnings."                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS believed that the way the bill is written, it            
 would require a jury to make so many predictions in every case in             
 every year that future earnings are awarded; that the change could            
 result in a real injustice to the injured person.  She believes her           
 language is better than what was there before.                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER reminded the committee that we did amend this to              
 hopefully provide that if the law changes, and the state taxes this           
 money, or the federal government decides to tax this money, this              
 deduction would not be made.  It would cause the court to have to             
 make estimates, but that is outweighed by the reality that it is              
 inappropriate to pay somebody money that they did not have coming.            
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER explained that for the jury to determine past wage              
 loss would be easy under this bill, because it says "they shall be            
 reduced by the amount of federal and state income taxes that would            
 be paid under tax rates, in effect, on the date of injury or                  
 death."                                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said if you fill out the tax forms for             
 the next few years, under the current tax laws, you will arrive at            
 a particular figure.  Is it not going to require at least,                    
 conceptually filling out the tax forms to see what bottom line they           
 would bring you, based on that person's current status, and                   
 projecting it into the future?                                                
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER said yes, he thought that was right.                            
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said we all know filling out taxes, even           
 for one year, is not easy and we are going to put this before the             
 jury?                                                                         
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER said it really is no different than what is already             
 put before the jury in terms of past wage loss, and we do not go to           
 trial very often about a difference in figuring past wage loss.               
 When you apply, you have an application of an existing tax schedule           
 to estimate earnings.  There is not going to be great room for                
 dispute about that.  The United States Supreme Court, in a case               
 called Norfolk and Western Railroad Company, versus Leapoeld,                 
 decided this was an appropriate thing to do back in 1980.  If you             
 were to take out the language, "under tax rates in effect on the              
 date of this injury or death," then yes, you would inject the very            
 problem that you are concerned about.  This bill was drafted to               
 avoid that.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the argument will be what the tax             
 laws of the state, at this time, are going to produce when                    
 projected into the future.  You may say it will not be much of an             
 issue, but from your determination, if the person is in the 28                
 percent category, and the bottom line of the other party, based on            
 their calculations, places them in the 15 percent category, that is           
 a big difference.  That is hundreds of thousands of dollars.  That            
 is an issue based on how you fill out your tax forms that a jury is           
 going to decide.                                                              
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER suggested that is a quantifiable thing, being far               
 easier for juries to determine with expert testimony, than things             
 like pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said it may be, but it is a huge new               
 area that gets into all sorts of things, and it may be smaller than           
 some other determinations, but it is going to be a new big one.               
                                                                               
 MR. LESSMEIER said it is not really new, because what the                     
 economists do right now is reduce these future economic damage                
 awards to present value.  This is one more calculation they would             
 be required to do, but you would not see a great deal of debate               
 about it.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he is convinced Mr. Lessmeier was             
 wrong.  Just the difference between 15 and 28 percent, which could            
 be the determination of whether they are going to get a deduction             
 for a particular piece of property they own, whether that piece of            
 property falls into the category of allowable deduction or not, and           
 whether that triggers them at 15 or 18, that alone would be enough.           
                                                                               
 Number 375                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said it does not take a rocket scientist to              
 determine what level of income is taxed at 15 percent, versus what            
 level of income is taxed at 28 percent.  He said this, keeping in             
 mind that he is not capable of doing his own income taxes.                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that was right, but there are all             
 these allowable deductions - every factor that goes into how you              
 treat your own taxes, and what goes into an audit, those are all              
 debatable issues before a jury.  The IRS has a million things you             
 can treat differently.  If taxes were simple, if we had a flat tax,           
 it would be different, but we do not.  We have the most complicated           
 set of things that go into the calculation.  His only point in all            
 this was to say that these items will now be before the jury.  How            
 big of an issue they become, he did not know, but it is a whole new           
 area, and that is what worries him.                                           
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said maybe he was not understanding something,           
 but say, a person is injured in a particular tax year.  You go back           
 to their last time they filed taxes, and see what percent of taxes            
 they paid at that time.                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said conditions have changed now;                  
 property that may have been the basis for their deduction, and                
 being able to itemize, may not be property that is in their                   
 possession anymore.  That may actually be involved in the dispute             
 in the first place, and you have burned up and they went with it.             
 These things just are not simple, and there is nothing in here that           
 says any automatic period.  It is every kind of detail, like the              
 one you just raised, those are left to a jury to decide, and there            
 may be some simple way to do it, but this is not going to achieve             
 it.  It is all going to be left up to a debate before a jury.                 
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER added, as is the merits of the entire case.  After            
 no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken on Amendment 9.             
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 430                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved Amendment 10:                                      
                                                                               
      Page 4, line 11:                                                         
           Delete:  ";"                                                        
           Insert:  "."                                                        
                                                                               
      Page 4, lines 12 - 14:                                                   
           Delete all material.                                                
                                                                               
      Page 7, line 31, through page 8, line 3:                                 
           Delete all material.                                                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said there is no reason to give half of the              
 punitive damages to the state.  She felt it may even be                       
 unconstitutional, but knew that Chairman Porter had mentioned that            
 it has been done in other states.                                             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the idea of giving it to the state, as opposed           
 to the defendant, is that after consideration of economic and non-            
 economic damages, the defendant has been made whole.  The punitive            
 damage is a punishment to the defendant, whose actions cause a                
 hazard to everyone, as opposed to just the individual who was                 
 harmed.                                                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that though there is some                     
 philosophical appeal to what he was saying, the problem is                    
 practical in the system we have.  We could pick a whole different             
 system to deal with these kinds of problems.  We could make the               
 state or federal government be the great determining factor of what           
 is right and wrong, having this monstrous District Attorney's                 
 Office going out and prosecuting everything that occurs.  They                
 would go out and make the case, and every penny that came in from             
 a judgement would go to the state.  He does not disagree with that            
 concept, necessarily, but we have this other system that gives                
 encouragement, through the system for people to pursue their own              
 claims at their own cost, to attempt to determine what is right or            
 wrong.  The state only has to be involved at the level of providing           
 the court.  So while it is an appealing concept, taking your                  
 argument to the extreme, we would never have punitive damages if we           
 made them 100 percent.                                                        
                                                                               
 After no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken.                      
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 535                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to move Amendment 11:                      
                                                                               
      Page 12, lines 19 - 21:                                                  
           Delete all material.                                                
                                                                               
      Page 17, lines 1 - 3:                                                    
           Delate all material.                                                
                                                                               
      Page 17, line 4:                                                         
           Delete all material.                                                
                                                                               
      Page 17, line 7:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
 Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                          
                                                                               
      Page 17, line 9:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 26"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 25"                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said she wanted to delete the section that               
 says "prejudgment interest cannot be awarded for future economic or           
 non-economic or punitive damages."  Current law does not allow for            
 prejudgment in punitive damages.  There would be longer litigations           
 when there is no incentive for them to settle.                                
                                                                               
 Number 550                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER felt there would be more litigation if someone                
 thought they were exposed to having to pay prejudgment interest on            
 future benefits.  Prejudgment interest, almost by definition, is              
 interest on what you would do between the time the case was filed,            
 and the award.  It seems illogical to pay prejudgment interest on             
 money that you were not entitled to in the first place, prior to              
 your being entitled to it.  For that reason he objected to the                
 amendment.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN expressed he felt a bit at a                       
 disadvantage, because every time he has a question, they call up a            
 representative of the insurance industry.  He would like to ask               
 questions of someone on the other side.  This is not really a fair            
 proceeding if there is only one industry that is represented.  He             
 found Mr. Lessmeier's testimony to be very helpful, and he has                
 answered a number of his questions, but there is two sides to this            
 issue, and as we know, it is a very complicated thing.  He could              
 not pretend to represent what actually goes on in the court room.             
 He has never even sat and watched one of these cases.  How is he              
 possibly to know?                                                             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said his questions involve facts, not philosophy,             
 and if Jeff Feldman was sitting here, he would answer the question            
 the same way Mike Lessmeier would as to whether or not somebody               
 gets interest on money that is not paid when it is due.  You get              
 it, but it is called post interest, it is not called prejudgment              
 interest.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the fact that he cannot have Mr.              
 Feldman or someone else present to answer his questions is very               
 unfair.  This is becoming a one sided forum, when the insurance               
 industry's views are the only thing left of the public.  We had               
 plenty of public input covering a variety of things.  Why should it           
 be summarized down to one industry's point of view?                           
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated to this point it has just been                         
 Representative Finkelstein's point of view against his own.  Mike             
 has not offered anything.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 650                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the point of this is to replicate             
 what the earning power of that money was at the particular time the           
 court has determined that it is based on.  It is a very complicated           
 subject.  He still felt that if we were going to hear from                    
 representatives on one side of this issue, we ought to be able to             
 hear from the other side.  We have, over and over again, used, as             
 an expert, a person who represents a particular industry, and he              
 had never seen Representative Porter hold a hearing that way                  
 before.                                                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER told Representative Finkelstein that if it his                
 impression that any information that Mr. Lessmeier has provided is            
 slanted, then we will not ask him any more questions.  We will not            
 avail ourselves of an attorney who is here and might have a better            
 perspective on these questions than we do.  That is fine, if that             
 is the way you want to do it.  We will debate these sections                  
 ourselves.                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wanted to note, for the record, how this           
 hearing was conducted.                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said Representative Finkelstein has, and certainly            
 may, note his opinion.  They have not asked anything other than               
 factual information, and that is what they have been getting.                 
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would be glad to review the                
 record with Chairman Porter, and he thought he could prove                    
 otherwise.                                                                    
                                                                               
 After no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken.                      
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to adopt Amendment 12:                     
                                                                               
      Page 2, lines 5 - 7:                                                     
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 4, lines 5 - 6:                                                     
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 14, line 20, through page 15, line 18:                              
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 17, line 9:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 26"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 25"                                                  
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Finkelstein and Davis            
 voted yes.  Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter            
 voted no.  The amendment failed on a vote of two to five.                     
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-23, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 13:                              
                                                                               
      Page 1, line 12, through page 2, line 4:                                 
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 4, lines 3 - 4:                                                     
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 4, line 15, through page 5, line 10:                                
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 16, line 23:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 14"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 16"                                                  
      Page 17, line 1:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 19"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 18"                                                  
      Page 17, line 4:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
      Page 17, line 9:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 26"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 25"                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 200                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 14:                              
                                                                               
      Page 4, line 18:                                                         
           Delete:  "personal injury, death, or"                               
      Page 4, line 21:                                                         
           Delete:  "personal injury, death, or"                               
      Page 4, line 24:                                                         
           Delete:  personal injury, death, or"                                
      Page 4, line 27:                                                         
           Delete:  personal injury, death, or"                                
      Page 5, lines 3 - 6:                                                     
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 14, line 16:                                                        
           Delete:  "personal injury, death, or"                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 225                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 15:                              
                                                                               
      Page 5, line 11, through page 6, line 4:                                 
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 16, line 23:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 14"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 13"                                                  
      Page 16, line 27:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 17"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 16"                                                  
      Page 17, line 1:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 19"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 18"                                                  
      Page 17, line 4:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
      Page 17, line 7:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
      Page 17, line 9:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 20"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 21"                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 450                                                                    
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Finkelstein and Davis            
 voted yes.  Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter            
 voted no.  The amendment failed on a vote of two to five.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 16.                              
                                                                               
      Page 6, line 30:                                                         
           Delete:  "$300,000"                                                 
           Insert:  "$1,500,000"                                               
                                                                               
      Page 7, line 1:                                                          
           Delete:  "$500,000"                                                 
           Insert:  "$3,000,000"                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote to two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 530                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 17:                              
                                                                               
      Page 7, lines 15 - 16:                                                   
           Delete all material.                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 575                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 18:                              
                                                                               
      Page 7, line 22:                                                         
           Delete:  "new subsections"                                          
           Insert:  "a new subsection"                                         
      Page 7, lines 23 - 30:                                                   
           Delete all material.                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 715                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 19:                              
                                                                               
      Page 9, line 15, through page 10, line 13:                               
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 16, line 22:                                                        
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 16, line 23:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 14"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 13"                                                  
      Page 16, line 27:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 19"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 18"                                                  
      Page 17, line 1:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 19"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 18"                                                  
      Page 17, line 4:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
      Page 17, line 7:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert: "sec. 20"                                                   
      Page 17, line 9:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 26"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 25"                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 20:                              
                                                                               
      Page 1, line 1:                                                          
           Delete:  "49,"                                                      
      Page 1, line 2:                                                          
           Delete:  ","                                                        
      Page 2, lines 8 - 10:                                                    
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 3, lines 27-30:                                                     
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 3, lines 27 - 30:                                                   
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 10, lines 15 - 16:                                                  
           Delete:  "person [PARTY TO THE ACTION]                              
           Insert:  "party to the action"                                      
      Page 10, lines 22 -27:                                                   
           Delete:  "(2) the percentage of the total fault [OF ALL             
           OF THE PARTIES TO EACH CLAIM] that is allocated to each             
           claimant, defendant, third-party defendant, [AND] person            
           who has been released from liability under AS 09.17.091,            
           or other person responsible for the damages to each                 
           claimant regardless of whether the other person,                    
           including an employer, is or could have been named as a             
           party to the action [AS 09.16.040]."                                
 Insert:  "(2) the percentage of the total fault of all of                   
           the parties to each claim that is allocated to each                 
           claimant, defendant, third-party defendant, and person              
           who has been released from liability under AS 09.178.091            
           [AS 09.16.040]."                                                    
                                                                               
 Page 11, lines 2 - 7:                                                        
  Delete:  "as determined under (a) of this section, an                      
           assessment of a percentage of fault against a person who            
           is not a party may only be used as a measure for                    
           accurately determining the percentages of fault of a                
           named party.  Assessment of a percentage of fault against           
           a person who is not a party does not subject that person            
           to civil liability in that action and may not be used as            
           evidence of civil liability in another action"                      
                                                                               
 Page 16, lines 23 - 26:                                                      
 Delete all material.                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, and Porter voted no.  The amendment failed,             
 two to four.                                                                  
                                                                              
 Number 780                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Number 21:                                 
                                                                               
      Page 12, lines 10 - 18:                                                  
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 17, line 1:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 19"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 18"                                                  
      Page 17, line 4:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
      Page 17, line 7:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
      Page 17, line 9:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 26"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 25"                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 830                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 22:                              
                                                                               
      Page 13, line 13, through page 13, line 18:                              
           Delete all material.                                                
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-23, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 085                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 23:                              
                                                                               
      Page 13, line 19 through page 14, line 12:                               
           Delete all material.                                                
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment               
 failed on a vote of two to five.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 160                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 24:                              
                                                                               
      Page 17, line 17:                                                        
           Delete:  "This Act takes effect July 1, 1995."                      
           Insert:  "This Act takes effect only if the Director of             
           the Division of Insurance certifies to the Lieutenant               
           Governor and the revisor of statutes that the liability             
           insurance rates filed with the Division of Insurance on             
           January 1, 1995, have been reduced by at least 10                   
           percent.  In this section, "liability insurance" means              
           insurance described under AS 21.12.070(a)(2).  *Sec. 37.            
           If the condition described in sec. 36 of this Act is                
           fulfilled, this Act takes effect 30 days after the date             
           of the certification described in sec. 36 of this Act."             
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment failed,              
 two to four.                                                                  
                                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 25:                              
                                                                               
      Page 7, line 20 - 21 delete: "of malice or conscious acts                
           showing deliberate disregard of another person by the               
           person from whom punitive damages are sought."                      
                                                                               
      Page 7, line 20 after "evidence of" insert: "outrageous                  
           conduct, acts done with malice or bad motives, or                   
           reckless indifference to the interests of another."                 
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment failed on            
 a vote of two to five.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 410                                                                    
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER offered Amendment 26:                                         
      Page 8, line 24:                                                         
           Insert after "lump sum", "to the attorney by judgment               
           debtor"                                                             
                                                                               
 Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted.                              
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER offered Amendment 27:                                         
      Page 8, line 29:                                                         
           Insert, after "state", or "self-insured municipality or             
           borough, "or"...                                                    
                                                                               
 Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted.                              
                                                                               
 Number 525                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 28:                              
      Page 6, lines 16 - 17:                                                   
           Delete:  "Notwithstanding the disability of minority                
           described under AS 09.10.140(a), a"                                 
           Insert:  "A"                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment failed on            
 a vote of two to four.                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 29:                              
      Page 3, line 31, through page 4, line 2:                                 
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 11, line 19, through page 12, line 9:                               
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 16, lines 27 - 31:                                                  
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 17, line 1:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 19"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 18"                                                  
      Page 17, line 4:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
      Page 17, line 7:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
      Page 17, line 9:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 26"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 25"                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment failed on            
 a vote of two to four.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 665                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered Amendment 30:                              
                                                                               
      Page 1, line 2:                                                         
           Delete:  "Rule of Evidence"                                         
           Insert:  "Rules of Evidence 411 and"                                
                                                                               
      Page 11, after line 18:                                                  
           Insert a new bill section to read:                                  
           "* Sec. 17. AS 09.25 is amended by adding a new section             
           to read:  Sec.  09.25.035.  EVIDENCE OF LIABILITY                   
           INSURANCE.  A claimant in an action for personal injury             
           or death may introduce evidence that a person defending             
           a claim is insured by a policy of liability insurance.              
           In this section, "liability insurance" means a policy of            
           insurance described under AS 21.12.070(a)(2)."                      
                                                                              
      Page 16, after line 26:                                                  
           Insert a new bill section to read:                                  
           "*Sec. 30.  AS 09.17.075, enacted in sec. 17 of this Act,           
           has the effect of amending Alaska Rule of Evidence 411 by           
           providing that evidence of liability insurance may be               
           introduced by a claimant in a civil action for personal             
           injury or death."                                                   
                                                                               
      Page 16, line 27:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 17"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 18"                                                  
                                                                               
       Page 17, line 1:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 19"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 20"                                                  
                                                                              
       Page 17, line 4:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 22"                                                  
                                                                               
       Page 17, line 7:                                                        
           Delete:  "sec. 21"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 22"                                                  
                                                                               
      Page 17, line 9:                                                         
           Delete:  "sec. 26"                                                  
           Insert:  "sec. 27"                                                  
                                                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                        
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives             
 Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no.  The amendment failed on            
 a vote of two to four.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 850                                                                    
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move HB 158, as amended, out            
 of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal              
 notes.                                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected.                                          
                                                                               
 TAPE 95-24, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Finkelstein and Davis            
 voted no.  Representatives Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted              
 yes.  CSHB 158(JUD) passed out of committee on a vote of four to              
 two.                                                                          
                                                                               
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 6:10 p.m.                          
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects