Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/03/1999 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 82 - IMMUNITY:CLAIMS ARISING FROM Y2K PROBLEMS
Number 1752
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be HB
82, "An Act relating to immunity for certain claims arising out of
or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and providing for
an effective date." He pointed out that the new proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version I [1-LS0398\I, Ford, 3/2/99], reflects the
conceptual amendments adopted by the committee the previous week.
He indicated the committee packets additionally contained an
executive summary of the Senate Year 2000 Problem report,
"Investigating the Impact of the Year 2000 Problem," issued by the
United States Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000
Technological Problem; chairman, Senator Bob Bennet; vice-chairman,
Senator Chris Dodd. The chairman noted the material provided to
the committee contained a web page address for anyone interested in
reviewing the entire report [homepage address for the United States
Senate special committee, with links to the report:
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/home.html]. The chairman indicated the
report was issued on February 24, 1999, and became available March
2 on the Internet. Chairman Rokeberg commented the committee had
also received additional information from Scott Thorson who
testified on HB 82 on February 26, 1999. He invited Ms. Seitz
forward to briefly explain the changes in the proposed Version I
CS.
Number 1802
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came forward. She told members
that Version I incorporates the three conceptual amendments adopted
by the committee on February 26. Amendment 1 added language
similar to that contained in S.96, the federal legislation; these
changes appear page 1, lines 12 and 13, and page 2, lines 14
through 18. Amendment 2 added "curing" language to give the
business an opportunity to cure its problems before any legal
action was instituted; this language appears on page 3, lines 7
through 14. Amendment 3 added some language covering people who
developed software, firmware, et cetera, and [those] who only sell,
rent or lease those items; that language is on page 2, line 20,
with the addition of the word "develops", and on line 25, with the
addition of the word "sells".
Number 1863
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute, 1-LS0398\I, Ford, 3/2/99, as a work draft. There being
no objection, Version I was before the committee.
Number 1881
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed no one wished to testify on HB 82. He
thanked members for their work on the bill at the previous hearing.
The chairman commented on two areas that had been discussed at that
hearing. He indicated Representative Murkowski had expressed some
concerns, and that he was also concerned, about "those provisions
of a plan of due diligence," page 1, line 14, through page 2, line
13. This language specifies specific steps, making good faith
efforts, and demonstrating to the courts what due diligence is.
The chairman expressed concern about these provisions; however, he
indicated he would like to leave the current language for the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, where the provisions as specific
steps would probably be removed or possibly modified depending on
legal input. Chairman Rokeberg commented he did not think this
would hurt the intention of the legislation. He noted he would
like to have further discussion of these issues by the public for
education purposes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to page 2, line 27, subsection (b)(2)
["(b) The defense in (a) of this section may not be asserted ...
(2) in an action based on a contract."]. The chairman indicated he
believes this section should probably be removed but wishes to
allow the House Judiciary Committee to debate the issue regarding
the legal aspect of the legislation. He based his reason for
removal on allowing the defense contained in the bill to come into
action, noting most causes of action brought under this "theory"
will be "actions in contract." The chairman expressed his belief
in the privy of contract and allowing the agreed performance to
take place, but said, conversely, if the action is not allowed the
defense the bill's purpose is defeated. Chairman Rokeberg stated
he would like to move the current version of the legislation out of
committee, asking for recommendations and discussion from the
committee.
Number 2020
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO thanked the chairman for his work on the
legislation. He commented on large articles in both the February
27 and 28 Seattle Times on year 2000 (Y2K) problems.
Representative Halcro noted this is one issue garnering bipartisan
support: Dianne Feinstein [Senator, California, Democrat] is
working with Orrin Hatch [Senator, Utah, Republican] in addressing
this. According to Representative Halcro, both have indicated that
if some form of immunity is not granted to businesses "there's just
gonna be a flood of litigation that this country has never seen
before." Representative Halcro stated he thinks the chairman is
"ahead of the curve on this," and he agrees the legislation needs
to get moving.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he echoed Representative Halcro's
comments. He added that the federal legislation, S.96, is being
taken up by the United States Senate, possibly this day on the
floor.
Number 2076
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commended the chairman for getting this
moving; however, she noted the somewhat "loose language" in the
cure provision, page 3, line 12, gives her some concern although
she notes she thinks the provision is absolutely critical
[subsection (d)(2)(B), "(B) gives the business the opportunity to
fix the problem, including reasonable access to electronic
computing devices or software affected by the failure described
under (A) of this paragraph;"]. She felt that language should be
"tightened up," indicating a business could say it would fix the
problem, but never do so. Representative Murkowski further
expressed some concern with the itemization in Section 1, the
drafter's either/or language: business either does the following
six steps or it follows the generally accepted standards of care.
Commenting she was somewhat thinking out loud, she questioned
whether the specific steps would be construed to be a business's
standard of care, indicating the possibility that something
critical might be overlooked because it was not included in those
six steps, and that the standard of care might be vary by industry.
In response to the chairman's comment, she agreed the disjunctive
disconnecting subsections (1) and (2) solves a lot of the concerns.
She reiterated her own concern, however, that the standard of care
within the industry not automatically revert back to the specific
steps. Representative Murkowski indicated she is much more
comfortable with the flexibility of the "or" language.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he tended to agree regarding the tightness
of the language. He inferred that Representative Murkowski, as a
member of the House Judiciary Committee along with the chairman,
could provide some possible wording.
Number 2237
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated she had missed the majority of the
previous hearing, but had listened to a taped copy. She confirmed
she was correct in her hearing that the chairman would like to see
the contract language deleted. She further confirmed the chairman
did not wish to amend the bill in this committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he thought the issue needed further
discussion and the House Judiciary Committee is the proper place
for that discussion. This issue is one of whether or not the
defense raised in the bill is defeated, he said, "By having the ...
exception of the contract, action (indisc.) contract left in."
Noting he is unsure of that dynamic, he believes it is best served
by removal, and, as the bill sponsor, he will make sure it is fixed
properly before it reaches the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned whether the legislation had
other committees of referral besides Judiciary.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative, noting there was a zero
fiscal note.
Number 2354
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move the proposed CS for HB
82, Version I, out of committee with the attached two zero fiscal
notes and individual recommendations. There being no objections,
CSHB 82(L&C) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|