Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/27/1997 09:38 AM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 1997
9:38 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11
Urging the Attorney General of the State of Alaska to use every
appropriate resource and due diligence to defend the state's
interests in the civil action filed against the state challenging
the 1996 revisions of the Northstar unit leases, and respectfully
requesting the Superior Court of the State of Alaska to give
expeditious consideration to the matter.
- ADOPTED A ZERO FISCAL NOTE FOR CSHCR 11(JUD), WHICH MOVED
OUT OF COMMITTEE 2/26/97
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to civil actions; relating to independent counsel
provided under an insurance policy; relating to attorney fees;
amending Rules 16.1, 41, 49, 58, 68, 72.1, 82, and 95, Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure; amending Rule 702, Alaska Rules of Evidence;
amending Rule 511, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSSHB 58(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 11
SHORT TITLE: NORTHSTAR AGREEMENT LITIGATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/97 398 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/19/97 398 (H) JUDICIARY
02/26/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/26/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: SSHB 58
SHORT TITLE: CIVIL ACTIONS & ATTY PROVIDED BY INS CO.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER, Cowdery, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 43 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 43 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/16/97 95 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY
02/17/97 373 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/17/97 374 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/19/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/19/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/21/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/21/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/21/97 429 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/24/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/24/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/26/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/27/97 (H) JUD AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
No testimony was given
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-29, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 9:38 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Berkowitz, Bunde, James, Green, Porter and
Croft. Representative Rokeberg arrived at 9:42 a.m.
HCR 11 - NORTHSTAR AGREEMENT LITIGATION
Number 022
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business, HCR 11,
"Urging the Attorney General of the State of Alaska to use every
appropriate resource and due diligence to defend the state's
interests in the civil action filed against the state challenging
the 1996 revisions of the Northstar unit leases, and respectfully
requesting the Superior Court of the State of Alaska to give
expeditious consideration to the matter."
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the resolution would be before the
committee again, as the committee did not move the zero fiscal with
the resolution at the previous meeting.
Number 043
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to incorporate the zero
fiscal note to CSHCR 11(JUD) (which moved from committee on
2/26/97).
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, the
zero fiscal note was adopted.
SSHB 58 - CIVIL ACTIONS & ATTY PROVIDED BY INS CO.
Number 072
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would hear SSHB 58,
"An Act relating to civil actions; relating to independent counsel
provided under an insurance policy; relating to attorney fees;
amending Rules 16.1, 41, 49, 58, 68, 72.1, 82, and 95, Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure; amending Rule 702, Alaska Rules of Evidence;
amending Rule 511, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and
providing for an effective date." He said the committee has
already addressed the first 11 amendments. He said the committee
would address Amendment 12, which was by Representative Croft/#6.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT said, If there is no objection,
Representative Berkowitz would offer Amendment 12. Amendment 12
reads as follows:
Page 25, line 18, following "be affected":
Insert "Sec. 64. This Act sunsets if, on July 1, 2000, 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 have not been reduced by
at least 10 percent from those filed on January 1, 1997. In this
section, "liability insurance" means insurance described under AS
21.12.070(a)(2).
Number 093
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ moved that Amendment 12 be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected to the adoption of Amendment 12.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained the reason for moving forward
with tort reform is to encourage the business climate in the state,
which he fully agrees with. One of the prerequisites is that
insurance rates decline as a result of the reform in tort. He said
he misspoke at the previous committee meeting when he informed the
committee that in seven of the last nine years insurance rates have
declined. He explained that decline was for workers compensation
insurance and not all types of insurance. As a consequence for his
misspeaking, he would offer Amendment 12 in the hopes that the
insurance industry will have an incentive to reduce their rates
and, therefore, encourage business in the state.
Number 196
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he wishes the civil justice system could
respond quickly, but it is an impossibility for insurance companies
to be able to lower rates immediately with the passage of one piece
of legislation. That problem exists for a couple of reasons.
First, the cases that currently exist and the ones that would be
filed up to the effective date of the bill must, by law, operate
under the existing laws. Those cases could drag on for years and
an insurance company's exposure, as it currently exists with
unlimited opportunity for damages in the noneconomic and punitive
damage areas, would remain on these cases for the next several
years while they wind their way through the litigation process
making it impossible to reduce rates immediately.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the secondly, the experience of other
states is that when comprehensive tort reform is passed, the
challenges to virtually every provision are brought before the
courts over the succeeding, up to ten years, which was California's
experience. Insurance companies also cannot make policy decisions
on policies until that kind of litigation has been settled.
Representative Porter explained the California experience is
probably one of the best indications of the fact that tort reform
can have a positive impact on rates, but it isn't necessarily going
to reduce rates. As normal inflation and costs of services
increase, so will rates to compensate people for wages, medical
costs and those kinds of things. Tort reform is an ingredient, not
the single factor that affects liability insurance rates. He gave
an example, on the national scale, relating to a Cessna airplane.
Number 469
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said this tort reform package requires
sacrifice from plaintiffs and plaintiff's attorneys. He said if we
are going to hold people's feet to fire, the insurance companies
should also be held to the fire. He stated, "If we're really going
to promote reform, we've got to have some stick as well as a carrot
and I think this provides the necessary stick."
Number 531
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES referred to the issues of insurance
and tort reform and said the insurance that people need to do
business, isn't available in many cases. If there is any kind of
an advantage after tort reform, she believes some policies will be
written.
Number 561
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted he failed to mention that the
amendment's provision was also discussed by the Governor's task
force. There was testimony from the Division of Insurance that
they very adamantly opposed this kind of a provision. Their
rationale was that one of the problems with Alaska is our small
population and multitude of high risk occupations is that it is
difficult to get people to write insurance here at all. He said
the division felt that with this kind of a provision, we would run
the risk of reducing the amount of insurance companies that would
even consider writing in Alaska.
Number 630
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he looks forward to working with his
colleagues on some kind of insurance reform because that is what
the tort reform question aims at. He said he hopes that the
insurance companies needs the warning shots being fired, because
they're next in the legislature's sights.
Number 666
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG noted he is the chairman of the
House Labor and Commerce Committee with the purview of insurance.
He said he would be happy to work with Representative Berkowitz if
he wants to do some kind of a measuring criteria.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the objection to the adoption of Amendment
12 is still maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the objection is still maintained.
A roll call vote was taken Representatives Croft and Berkowitz
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 12. Representatives
Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, James and Green voted against the adoption
of Amendment 12. Amendment 12 failed to be adopted.
Number 730
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved Amendment 13 which follows:
Page 6, lines 3 through 20:
Delete all material.
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) Except as provided in (c) of this section, the
court shall require deposit into the general fund of 50
percent of that portion of punitive damages award that is
equal to or less than the greater of three times the amount of
compensatory damages or $300,000.
(c) The court shall require deposit into the general
fund of 50 percent of that portion of punitive damages award
that is equal to or less than the greater of four times the
amount of compensatory damages or $600,000, if
(1) the wrongful conduct or omission arose in
connection with a commercial activity motivated by financial
gain; and
(2) the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury
from the commercial activity was previously known by the
person responsible for making policy decisions relating to the
commercial activity and the knowledge was gained from previous
instances of death or serious bodily injury arising from the
same wrongful conduct or omission, regardless of where the
previous wrongful conduct or omission occurred.
(d) If a court or jury awards punitive damages under (a)
of this section, the court shall require that 100 percent of
the punitive damages award that exceeds the maximum amounts
described under (b) or (c) of this section, as applicable, be
deposited into the general fund or the Alaska permanent fund
under AS 37.13.010. The party paying the punitive damages
shall elect which fund shall receive the money required to be
paid under this subsection.
(e) The provisions of this section do not grant the
state the right to file or join a civil action to recover
punitive damages."
Page 16, line 4:
Delete "due the statue under AS 09.17.020(d)"
Insert "required to be deposited under AS 09.17.020
Page 23, line 31, after "fund":
Insert "or the Alaska permanent fund"
Number 732
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained Amendment 13 addresses what happens
to the money over the cap. He said he would remind the committee
that they are talking about people who have been found by a jury of
Alaskans, by clear and convincing evidence, which is the higher
standard that we have in the general portion of the civil area, of
malicious or conscious action and deliberate disregard for another
person. Included in that would be intentional acts.
Representative Croft said punishment is the root of punitive
damages. We have to have punishment sufficient to deter the
conduct and to make sure that others, similarly situated, won't
have an incentive to do it. As a mater of public policy, the
courts have for some time not allowed punitive damages to be
covered by insurance because they didn't want people buying
insurance before committing horrible acts. They don't want O. J.
Simpson to go out and buy punitive damage insurance before
murdering. Representative Croft explained the courts have held
that it is against public policy to buy punitive damage insurance.
He said his concern with this portion of the bill is that we're not
punishing appropriately to the defendants. He said he would be
heavily punished by a $10,000 or $20,000 fine, but a $10,000 or
$20,000 fine to Exxon is not an effective punishment.
Representative Croft said what the amendment says is anything
awarded above Representative Porter's current cap structure would
go into the permanent fund. Representative Croft said there are
certain constitutional concerns with dedicated funds. The way the
bill is current written, it says that the plaintiff can take that
and put it in the general fund or the permanent fund as they wish.
He noted he had discussions with legislative legal, they have said
that may very well solve the constitutional problem as it isn't
being forced in to any other fund. They are given the option and,
if so, they don't have to pay twice. He urged that there be one
section that says let the punishment fit the crime and let the
people, rather than the wrong-doer, keep the money.
Number 1071
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded that the amendment eliminates the
caps on punitive damages with the added inducement to inspire the
profit motivations of the state and all of the residents by saying,
"Maybe we should get this money." He explained that the 1,500
cases that are filed that allege punitive damages are not against
Ford Motor Company or Exxon, they're against mom and pop businesses
that end up having to settle higher than they should because of
that unlimited exposure that would exist if Amendment 13 was
adopted.
Number 1171
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER questioned what would have happened if the O.
J. Simpson dilemma happen in Alaska. He said it happened in
California, and notwithstanding what the jury awarded, the punitive
damage award is going to be reduced significantly because there is
a California law that says you cannot attach more than 25 percent
of anybody's future earnings, even with the kind of decision that
resulted in the Simpson case. Sometime down the road that will be
reduced significantly.
Number 1204
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the Exxon Valdez case and said
under the current version of the bill, the punitive damages would
have been in the area of several billion dollars and not $600,000.
He urged the committee members not to adopt Amendment 13.
Number 1224
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to the profit motives of the state
and said if the cap is removed, then it would also appeal to the
profit motives of the personal injury attorneys whose contingency
fee would go up with the increase or lack of a cap.
Number 1260
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ informed the committee there are a lot of
attorneys who live in his district. Some are plaintiff attorneys
and some are defense attorneys. He said he would note that the
defense attorneys seem to live in nicer houses and drive nicer
cars. He said he thinks that what Representative Croft is pointing
out is that punitive damages are really awarded when harm has been
done, not just to the individual as it would be compensatory harm,
but to the community at large. By putting the punitive damage
amounts in to the community's coffers, the community in a sense is
being made whole. What this does is bring punitives back into a
form of compensatories for the community in total. Representative
Croft said there aren't a lot of Ford Motor cases in Alaska, but
there are a lot of cases involving insurance bad faith and perhaps
aircraft malfunction. We shouldn't write a law that prevents
people who have been injured by large companies from seeking
adequate redress. The bulk of cases fall well within the caps, but
for those exceptions the bill would prevent people who have been
injured by large corporations or wealthy individuals from getting
adequate redress. The people are of Alaska would be prevented from
being made whole in the form of punitive damages.
Number 1353
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "That is true statistically, but a vast
majority of the cases would fall below these caps, but it's the
perception that what happens to a mom and pop operation that when
insurance rates are so high to protect that one or two that aren't
Ford Motor company. And I think that's where we've got a problem.
How do we adequately serve those people to allow them to continue
to exist with a reasonable policy or a roll of the die saying, `I
won't take insurance that I can't afford, so I'll just take a risk
that nothing will happen and if it does, I'm dead meat,' and we
don't want that to happen to the entrepreneur."
Number 1392
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he grew up in a mom and pop type of
an operation. He said he is sympathetic to the pitfalls of
frivolous lawsuits and unsubstantiated punitive damage claims. He
said we don't cure the problem after damages have been awarded. We
cure the problem by preventing damage claims from being initiated
in the beginning and that the bar is set high enough so that people
can't even seek punitive damages unless prerequisites are met.
Representative Berkowitz said we set the bar high by allowing for
some sort of mediation or alternative dispute resolution at the
beginning. The mom and pop operations can't afford to hire an
attorney every time someone comes around.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said currently juries are instructed that they
need to consider how outrageous the conduct was and what does it
take to deter this plaintiff. Though we may differ sometimes with
an individual jury's determinations, that is what the jury is being
asked to find, and when the jury doesn't consider these factors,
that is usually the reason they are overturned. He stated we know
how important proportionality is in the system and we will lose
that on the highest earning defendants and lose the ability to
effectively deter them. He referred to the Simpson verdict and
said he has concerns that the Simpson verdict would be very much
lower under the bill. He stated it was the noneconomic damage
rather than the wage earning potential of Nicole that got the
compensatory up to a level where they can get it three times. That
would be capped under the bill. He referred to Representative
Bunde's comment and said there have been cases that determined
whether a judge could consider issues on the permanent fund given
that he would receive permanent fund dividends. What they held was
there is a attenuated benefit from a $500,000 deposit now that goes
into the principal that might or might not come out as dividends.
He said we're really talking about pennies. What's true for the
judges would be true for the juries. Juries would want to
effectively punish that defendant. Because these cannot be covered
by insurance, it's a similarly attenuated loop that links punitive
damages to insurance rates because they are the only category of
damages that cannot be insured for.
Number 1608
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to punitive damages and said there
was an adequate amount of testimony that indicates that punitive
damages has a great impact on the cost of settlement. In 95
percent of the cases that settle, in those cases where there are
claims made for punitive or noneconomic damages, the punitive
damages has to be on the mind of the defendant and influences their
decision on how high to settle based on that exposure that is not
covered by rates. If the settlement then results in an amount
higher than what it should have been, that is definitely going to
affect rates.
Number 1651
CHAIRMAN GREEN said the objection is maintained and asked for a
roll call vote. Representatives Croft and Berkowitz voted in favor
of the adoption of Amendment 13. Representatives Porter, Rokeberg,
James, Bunde and Green voted against the adoption of Amendment 13.
Amendment 13 failed to be adopted.
Number 1679
CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would address Amendment 14,
Porter, H.5, which follows:
Page 20, line 2, following "allocating":
Insert "fees and".
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he has been advised that there would
probably be no objection to Amendment 14, which adds "fees and" so
it is consistent with two other references to fees and costs. He
moved that Amendment 14 be adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Hearing none,
Amendment 14 was adopted.
Number 1717
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he has also been informed that there
wouldn't be an objection to Amendment 16 which follows:
Page 7, line 8:
Delete "[Future]"
Insert "future"
Page 8, line 1:
Delete "[Future]"
Insert "future".
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said a with the insertion of the term
"future" that had previously been deleted, when they talk about
what portion of a judgment may be considered for periodic payments,
they are talking about future damages and not a current medical
bills. He moved Amendment 16, H.7, Porter.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to Amendment 16.
Hearing none, Amendment 16 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address Amendment 15,
H.6, Porter.
Number 1739
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that Amendment 15 be adopted which
follows:
Page 10, lines 1 - 4
Delete "The trier of fact may assign a percentage of fault to
[DETERMINE THAT] two or more persons [ARE TO BE TREATED AS A SINGLE
PARTY] if their conduct was a cause of the damages claimed and the
separate act or omission of each person cannot be distinguished."
Insert "[THE TRIER OF FACT MAY DETERMINE THAT TWO OR MORE
PERSONS ARE TO BE TREATED AS A SINGLE PARTY IF THEIR CONDUCT WAS A
CAUSE OF THE DAMAGES CLAIMED AND THE SEPARATE ACT OR OMISSION OF
EACH PERSON CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED.]"
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to the adoption of
Amendment 15.
Number 1743
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the amendment would make the provision
of this particular area of the law totally consistent with the
principle of apportionment of fault. He said a section would be
deleted that was involved in the area of apportionment of fault.
He said he couldn't find a situation that this was trying to fix.
Representative Porter explained, "It is inconsistent with basically
saying that we think that a jury is very capable of apportioning
fault and that it somehow, if you had the ability to say that a
jury didn't want to try to make that choice, but thought that they
could combine the damage of two defendants into 1 percentage of
fault, it begs the question, `Well then who pays it? Is that a
50/50 division between those two? Does the deep pocket get nailed
again or what is it?' So considering all of that, I think that it
is appropriate to leave the consistency of what it is we're trying
to get at - in place. Have the jury apportion fault to any person
that is responsible and not try to mitigate that by saying `But if
you can't make up your mind between two, you can combine them.'
That doesn't seem consistent with apportionment of fault.
Number 1829
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "We're asking the jury to assign
separate negligence to claims that, by definition, where the
conduct was the cause of damage and the separate act or omission of
each person cannot be distinguished. So we're telling them in this
very rare area where you cannot distinguish them, distinguish them.
It's logically flawed." Representative Croft explained there are
situations where two people cooperate to cause a damage. He said
if the fault is identical and the damage is identical, he doesn't
know on what basis a jury is going to divide. He indicated it
would complicate the law. Don't ask the jury to distinguish things
that, by definition, cannot be distinguished.
Number 1904
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that is part of the problem in that if
he can't find a reason for something, then he wonders why it
exists. He said the only fact situation he could come up with is
that if someone were to cross the street and simultaneously one car
hit him from one side and the other hit him on the other side,
although he doesn't think that kind of thing will happen.
Representative Porter said it could be used as a device to get at
a deep pocket again.
Number 1961
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT discussed a law school case, Summers v. Tice.
Number 2011
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained the other reason is it would be
totally inconsistent with existing law. Section 09.17.080(d) says,
"The court shall enter judgment against each party liable on a
basis of severable liability in accordance with that parties
percentage of fault."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the objection is maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he still objects to the adoption of
Amendment 15.
Number 1739
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, James,
Bunde, Porter and Green voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment
15. Representative Croft and Berkowitz voted against the adoption
of Amendment 15. Amendment 15 was adopted.
Number 2050
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Mr. Chairman, can I just put for the
record our prior conflicts back on. I'm still not sure of the
procedure, but as stated before, Representative Berkowitz and my
prior conflicts on the record.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said he appreciates that and indicated it would be
noted.
Number 2096
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained there were a lot of questions
during testimony, that could have deserved answers, but most have
been cleared up during the debate on the amendments. He said he
would ask the committee members to consider that the task force
report is now a proposed piece of legislation that has been
introduced by the Governor. He asked the question of why does SSHB
58 include many more ingredients than what the task force's bill
does. He said his opinion is that it is because of the required
structure of the voting that the task force had. Representative
Porter said he doesn't have any doubt that there was an attempt to
balance the task force with 50 percent pro and 50 percent anti.
Consumers or insurance companies weren't there. He said a
requirement to get an item included in the task force report was
super majority. Representative Porter said if you're pro tort
reform, you would look at proposing a new provision in law or to
propose a change in an existing area of law. If there is a two-
thirds requirement to get something into the report, it will fail.
He said it is a benefit that 50 percent thought it was a good idea.
Number 2198
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said there has been some deliberation on
Representative Porter's bill. In his opinion, it has been
inadequate considering the sweeping changes that would be enacted
as a result of the bill. The Governor's task force went through
their proposed bill in great detail. He said clearly, there has to
be some vehicle for tort reform. Representative Berkowitz
explained the Governor's bill draws on the wisdom of people who
spent a lot of time contemplating what is going on. He explained
he looks at it as buying a vehicle, either the Governor's vehicle
or Representative Porter's vehicle. The Governor's vehicle has
been road tested as people have examined it, it runs, it works, it
services all our needs. Some people aren't happy with the
acceleration, some don't like the cargo space, but it works.
Representative Berkowitz referred to Representative Porter's
vehicle, and said it doesn't start or do what it's supposed to do.
It doesn't do anything to address frivolous lawsuits, it doesn't do
anything to advance the cause of plaintiff justice and it doesn't
really help business to any great degree. He said in enacting any
sort of tort reform, we have to remember what the function is of
the judiciary.
Number 2291
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said we live in a situation where when
there are adversarial impulses or conflict, we want to resolve
those conflicts in a structured environment because that promotes
the interest of justice. We will never get to a perfectly fair or
just world, but procedures can be established that enable us to
reach out and get closer to that fairness and justice. He said he
doesn't believe that Representative Porter's bill moves us closer
to fairness and justice. He said he would be happy to work with
Representative Porter and anyone else who is involved to produce
civil justice reform that serves the interest of all Alaskans,
including plaintiffs, defendants, businesses and individuals. He
said he would like to see the bill mature into a car that can
drive.
Number 2337
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained the reason she supports tort reform
is because there is a cloud hanging over us and it is a threat
people feel when they go into business. That threat makes people
do things differently or maybe not do them at all. That pressure
needs to be relieved. The benefits only remain to be seen over
time, but if another person is willing to put his investment into
creating an economic activity, the net receipts will more than make
up for any single individual who may be deprived of their ability
to get fair treatment. Representative James said she supports the
bill.
Number 2393
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSSSHB 58, with the
attached fiscal notes, out of committee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Representative
Berkowitz objected.
Number 2409
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives James, Bunde, Porter,
Rokeberg and Green voted in favor of moving the bill.
Representatives Croft and Berkowitz voted against moving the bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced CSSSHB 58(JUD) moved out of the House
Judiciary Committee. He thanked the committee for their
participation.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2459
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at
10:23 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|