Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/25/2013 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB102 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 102-RETIREMENT PLANS; ROTH IRAS; PROBATE
3:49:14 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to property exemptions for
retirement plans, individual retirement accounts, and Roth IRAs;
relating to transfers of individual retirement plans; relating
to the rights of judgment creditors of members of limited
liability companies and partners of limited liability
partnerships; relating to the Uniform Probate Code, including
pleadings, orders, liability, and notices under the Uniform
Probate Code and the Alaska Principal and Income Act, the
appointment of trust property, the Alaska Uniform Prudent
Investor Act, co-trustees, trust protectors, and trust advisors;
relating to the Alaska Principal and Income Act; relating to the
Alaska Uniform Transfers to Minors Act; relating to the
disposition of human remains; relating to the tax on insurers
for life insurance policies; relating to insurable interests for
certain insurance policies; relating to restrictions on
transfers of trust interests; relating to discretionary
interests in irrevocable trusts; relating to the community
property of married persons; and amending Rule 64, Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure, and Rule 301(a), Alaska Rules of Evidence."
3:49:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 102, stated Alaska first modernized the trust laws in 1977.
Alaska's trust laws have brought millions into the state due to
its favorable trust laws. Even though the dollars are not
direct state revenue dollars, the funds in the economy and
affect jobs in the legal and trust industry.
3:51:23 PM
ERNEST PRAX, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, stated Representative Keller gave a broad overview
of the bill. He recognized testifiers available to testify and
answer questions.
3:52:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled, 28-LS0335\A.1, Bannister, 2/19/13, which read, as
follows:
Page 3, line 3:
Delete "AS 34.40.113"
Insert "AS 34.40.118"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
MR. PRAX explained that Amendment 1 corrects a drafting error,
which relates to Section 43 of the bill.
3:54:24 PM
BETH CHAPMAN, Attorney, Faulkner Banfield, P.C., stated she has
practiced in the trust and estates law for the past 25 years.
She indicated HB 102 is an important bill as it would continue
to allow Alaska to be considered one of the premier states for
trust and estates law. It is not only helpful for bringing
business into the state, but it also keeps assets in the state,
particularly for Alaskans. She reported that most of her
clients are Alaskans and her law office uses these laws every
day for the wealthy and for others.
MS. CHAPMAN then highlighted important points in the bill. The
bill would continue to provide and clarify the creditor
protection for trusts and retirement plans, which is very
essential for individuals, in particular, with their retirement
accounts, she said. Sections 9-11 of the bill would provide
improvements to a provision to allow modification of irrevocable
trusts without going to court to do so. This provision will
give attorneys the ability to respond to changing circumstances
within families and keep the overall legal costs lower for
families.
3:56:00 PM
MS. CHAPMAN related that Sections 12-13 would address insurance
policies. Sections 33-35 would allow the extension of the
Uniform Transfers of Minors Act, which many families use to hold
assets for minor children; these trusts generally terminate
between ages 18-21. She pointed out that there are situations
when it might not be a good idea to allow a child access to
trust funds, and therefore this proposed change would allow a
custodian to extend the trust to age 25 in certain circumstances
in order to address substance abuse problems, immaturity, or
other issues young adults might face.
3:56:52 PM
MS. CHAPMAN then pointed out that Section 36 proposes a new
provision that would allow individuals to now leave directions
with respect to the disposition of remains. Under current law,
a person can indicate preferences, but the preference is not
legally binding. At times, it can lead to family disputes. For
example, she has had a client involved in lengthy litigation
regarding the burial wishes of a parent. In brief, this
provision will allow individuals to leave directives with
respect to their remains.
3:57:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD understood this bill allows Alaska to be
premier in trust and estates law. She asked for examples of how
this would affect businesses in the state and any assets kept in
the state.
3:57:56 PM
MS. CHAPMAN answered that prior to 1997 trust companies were all
out-of-state companies. She said her clients would name an out-
of-state trust company and the assets would be "custodied"
outside Alaska. Now, several trust companies are located in
Alaska so the assets remain in the state. Further, additional
business would be brought to the state since one requirement is
some assets must be located in the state on deposit with an
Alaska bank. Rather than going offshore, individuals who wish
to take advantage of Alaska laws would set up a trust under
Alaska law and deposit funds with an Alaska trust company.
3:58:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether she could name any new
businesses and the nature of the assets she just described.
MS. CHAPMAN deferred to Mr. Blattmachr, Alaska Trust Company, to
respond and relate the impact to its business. However, with
respect to her clients, Ms. Chapman related that multiples of
millions of dollars, probably tens and tens of millions of
dollars that have stayed in Alaska [as a result of Alaska's
trust and estates law].
3:59:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked who benefits besides the customers
that bring their assets to Alaska.
MS. CHAPMAN answered that the clients using the laws benefit, as
well as the employees of the various trust companies and banks
now offering the trust services. Additionally, other
professionals, such as accountants or lawyers in the financial
planning area would benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to the advantages to the
state.
MS. CHAPMAN responded that favorable estate laws allow
businesses to grow in the trust area, such as trust companies
who offer services. Additionally, the state also receives a
premium tax on insurance. Further, banks benefit from the
assets deposited. She recalled the president of Northrim Bank
sent a letter detailing how it has affected his business.
Finally, Alaskans would benefit since they can plan their
estates and know Alaska's courts will govern if any issues
arise.
4:01:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his understanding that the state
receives the tax and then inquired as to how much is collected.
MS. CHAPMAN answered no; and deferred to Mr. Blattmachr.
4:02:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON understood Alaska is no longer number one
in the nation [in terms of being beneficial for trust and
estates law.]
MS. CHAPMAN said that is correct; the state has had significant
competition from Delaware, South Dakota, and Nevada since trust
and estates law is a continually growing field.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether it is beneficial for Alaska
to compete and lower its tax or is there a point of diminishing
returns.
MS. CHAPMAN deferred to Mr. Blattmachr to speak to the premium
tax.
4:02:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how other states benefit from the
amended laws and asked why Alaska should amend its current law.
MS. CHAPMAN answered that other states benefit since assets are
deposited in these other states, which increases their banks'
capital. Additionally, the trust companies charge fees and
employ more employees in these states. By amending the trust
and estates law, Alaska could say it still has the best trust
and estates law in the U.S. and that the trusts should be kept
in Alaska.
4:04:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if the money is being circulated
in Alaska's economy.
MS. CHAPMAN confirmed that the deposited money would be
circulated since the banks can lend those funds.
4:04:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related his understanding that Delaware
is known for its friendly corporate statutes, which has resulted
in businesses incorporating there without doing business there.
He questioned whether that could occur in Alaska such that an
individual from another state could establish an estate in
Alaska.
MS. CHAPMAN answered that the Alaska statutes require some
assets be located in Alaska, rather than just allowing the law
to be used.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired as to Ms. Chapman's opinion
regarding the required nexus with Alaska.
MS. CHAPMAN opined that [the nexus requirement] it is very good
as it would help strengthen any jurisdictional issues that may
arise, such as with a conflict of law question. Further, the
nexus requirement "makes it more real" and provides a necessary
connection.
4:06:25 PM
JONATHAN BLATTMACHR, Attorney; Director, Estate Planning, Alaska
Trust Company, stated he has been a major protagonist of this
bill. He said he is a member of the Alaska, California, and New
York bars. In 1997, when Alaska's trust and estates law passed,
Alaska received tremendous positive publicity that resulted in
other states following suit. Although Delaware passed its
version of Alaska's law within 30 days, he opined that
Delaware's trust and estates law is not as good as Alaska's law.
To date, 15-16 states have tried to follow suit with the trust
and estates law. He said these trust and estates laws have been
very good for all states. In fact, about three years ago a
Harvard law professor, Robert H. Sitkoff, wrote an article
pointing out states which have passed similar statutes have
increased commerce in their trust and related industries.
4:08:06 PM
MR. BLATTMACHR summarized that Alaska gets four benefits [from
amending the trust and estates law]. First, its great laws for
Alaskans and many more use these laws than people in the Lower
48. Second, it has stopped the transfer of funds outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S., outside the jurisdiction of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the federal courts. Thus,
people have greater safeguard since American courts have
jurisdiction and can undo a wrong. He informed the committee
that he had this idea in the mid-1990s after reading that over
$400 billion had left the U.S. to little offshore countries,
some which cannot be found on a map. As mentioned earlier,
Alaska now has 15-16 states as competitors. Therefore, "We're
back here to put Alaska number one," he said.
MR. BLATTMACHR related, thirdly, the state receives state
premium taxes from which it has received millions of dollars of
taxes on life insurance premiums that no one in the U.S.
would've received because these large policies were often
structured in Bermuda. Therefore, by imposing a tiny tax on
these very large sums of money, Alaska receives the tax and it
does not cost the state anything. Alaska's only competitor
[with regard to the premium taxes] is South Dakota, which has
dropped its premium tax by a tiny margin. Still, Alaska has
been receiving most of the business, he opined.
MR. BLATTMACHR stated the fourth benefit - which Ms. Chapman
mentioned earlier - is the tens of millions of dollars that have
been deposited in institutions in Alaska. This allows banks,
such as Northrim Bank, to have capital to loan to Alaska's
businesses and Alaska's homeowners. He characterized this bill
as a tremendous win for the state and offered his belief that
the changes in HB 102 will put Alaska as number one, again.
4:10:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired as to what new businesses are
directly impacted by this proposal.
MR. BLATTMACHR answered that the Alaska Trust Company, which
employs about a dozen people, did not exist until the 1997 law
passed. He related the Aleut Corporation backed the formation
of the Alaska Trust company. Additionally, the Allen Trust,
operating in Oregon, will be opening a trust facility in Alaska.
He agreed lawyers, paralegals, accountants, and life insurance
agents in Alaska all also benefit. He reiterated numerous
relatively high-paying managerial jobs have been created and
maintained for Alaskans.
4:12:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this bill would make
Alaska more attractive and provide an upswing for the state.
She further asked who would collect the tax and whether it would
be deposited into the general fund.
MR. BLATTMACHR said he unsure of which division would receive
the taxes, but the revenue goes into state revenues. He
reiterated that the bill would bring more business to Alaska.
He related that he previously had a large estate planning
practice with at least 300 clients, some of whom were very
wealthy who used Alaska laws for their estate planning. In
fact, one of the wealthiest clients in the U.S. directed his
will be admitted to probate in Alaska, which has provided work
for Alaskans. Mr. Blattmachr maintained that Alaska's estate
planning laws have been very attractive, which has resulted in
other states becoming jealous and trying to attract business.
Again, this bill will help keep the state on top, he opined. In
fact, Ms. Chapman, David Shaftel, and he plan to write a major
article for the estate planning community if this bill passes.
He said, "It's not just deposits and taxes, it's jobs as well."
He then characterized the bill as a triple winner for the state.
4:14:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether it is beneficial for Alaska
to compete by lowering its [state premium] tax or is there a
point of diminishing returns.
MR. BLATTMACHR opined that it would be helpful to lower the
[state premium tax], but only to the level of South Dakota's
rate. When South Dakota first changed its laws, most New York
investment bankers did not think the tiny .02 of one percent
would make a difference. Although Mr. Blattmachr thought it is
the odd case, some individuals paying the premiums [went where
there were savings]. While he did not propose meeting South
Dakota's rate, he said he did not think it would be a bad idea.
He clarified that Alaska is not number one based on the rankings
of who has the best laws for trust business. Although there is
disagreement and some think Nevada and South Dakota are better,
he maintained that Alaska could be the best with passage of this
bill. Further, it doesn't cost the state anything, while
providing new jobs, revenue for the state, and capital in
Alaska's banks. In fact, when the original law was first
drafted, he insisted on an Alaska trustee and the requirement to
deposit money in Alaska so that Alaska would benefit.
Furthermore, as Ms. Chapman indicated earlier more Alaskans have
used the trust and estates law to their benefit than residents
of any other state. In conclusion, this new law will provide
more money to the state, in particular, with respect to
individual retirement accounts (IRAs).
4:18:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON recalled that effort to pass these types
of laws has been around for some time. He asked whether former
Governor Knowles vetoed a similar bill.
MR. BLATTMACHR answered yes; that when a prior bill passed the
legislature, House Bill 96 - which he thought passed the
legislature unanimously - the governor was told it could hurt
banks in the state. Therefore, the governor vetoed the bill.
The next year the banks supported the bill and the legislature
passed the law again. He characterized the veto as an
unfortunate misunderstanding.
4:19:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the same jurisdictional
issue would apply if an Alaskan wanted to go through probate in
South Dakota, such that he/she would need property or assets in
South Dakota to open a trust and go through probate in that
state.
MR. BLATTMACHR answered that he was the first lawyer to forum
shop for trusts and begin using South Dakota trusts, which he
did prior to Alaska passing its trust bill. He explained that
during that time he called South Dakota lawyers and asked them
if he needed a South Dakota trustee or whether any funds needed
to be deposited in order to use South Dakota trust laws to which
they responded that they didn't know. Therefore, the Alaska
legislation is crafted to be very clear that an Alaska trustee
is required, assets must be deposited in Alaska, and part of the
administration of the trust has to occur in Alaska. Most of the
states that have passed similar legislation do not have the
nexus or connection laws as well defined as Alaska's trust and
estates law, he said. In fact, he tells his clients that
Alaska's trust and estates law provides them greater certainty.
4:20:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked who collects the [premium
insurance] tax, whether it is deposited into the general fund,
and if so, how much is collected.
BRET KOLB, Director, Division of Insurance (DOI), Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), answered the
[insurance premium] tax is collected by the DOI and is deposited
into the general fund. With regard to the amount collected, he
related the division is challenged in finding granular enough
data. He reported the insurance premium tax collected is
approximately $58 million, annually; however, that figure
represents all insurance premium taxes, not just trust related
taxes. He explained that the taxes are not reported to the
level of specificity for him to break it down at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether [more granular data would
be available] if this bill passes because those figures would be
helpful. Although she said she is thrilled that the private
sector is also benefitting, she expressed the desire to see that
the state is benefitting as well. She then inquired as to where
the earlier mentioned tens of millions of dollars being
deposited in Alaska is coming; she questioned whether the money
is from Alaskans or from the outside of the state.
MR. KOLB answered that he couldn't speak to the source of the
funds and who is depositing money into the trust since the
deposits are on the trust side, which doesn't fall under the
DOI. The bill has only three sections pertaining to insurance,
including the premium tax on insurance.
4:23:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if the DOI can obtain the trust
data.
MR. KOLB answered that the DOI is considering how to obtain more
granular data. When the DOI receives a premium tax payment, it
is a large number and the specific policy-by-policy information
is not currently available. However, he said he is interested
in gathering such data since it would provide helpful
information.
4:24:40 PM
CHAIR OLSON related his understanding that it only impacts
insurance policies in excess of $100,000.
MR. KOLB confirmed Chair Olson's understanding. In further
response to Chair Olson, Mr. Kolb reiterated that at this point
the details are not available. Currently, the law is written
specific to individual life insurance policies and HB 102 would
broaden it to allow group life insurance policies.
4:25:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, referring to his earlier question, asked
whether it's beneficial for Alaska to compete by passing small
comprehensive changes to its laws, including lowering its
premium insurance taxes, or if there is a point of diminishing
returns.
MR. KOLB said he reviewed the figures to get an idea and found
that $100 million in individual life insurance premium would
result in $102,000 in premium tax. Although a change in the tax
rate from .1 to .08 would result in a relatively insignificant
impact in terms of the lower amount of premium tax collected, it
may be helpful if it enhanced the environment.
4:26:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to whether changing the
premium tax rate would make it less attractive for a couple of
customers since some customers, as Mr. Blattmachr mentioned
earlier, may want to save the $5,000 to $10,000 that would be
available under the South Dakota law versus Alaska's trust and
estates law.
MR. KOLB answered that lowering the premium tax portion would
slightly lower the premium tax on insurance policies collected
by the state; however, it would also result in less premium tax
companies would have to pay.
4:28:10 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked whether the administration has taken a
position on HB 102.
MR. KOLB answered that the state is neutral on the bill.
4:28:39 PM
BRENDA NATION, Regional Vice President, State Relations,
American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), began by informing the
committee that the ACLI is a national trade association that
represents the life insurance industry. The ACLI's interest in
HB 102 is more reflective of insurance interest statutes are
being changed in the insurance code in Alaska. She said the
ACLI works closely with the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) on changes to the uniform trust
code with respect to insurable interest. She referred to
documents she also provided [in members' packets] from NCCUSL.
4:30:05 PM
MS. NATION recalled hearing testimony that people want Alaska's
trust laws to be the best trust laws, including greater
certainty. However, with respect to Section 39, everything was
followed in making the NCCUSL's amendments mirrored in the
Alaska law. Thus, ACLI would support Section 39 of HB 102.
However, with respect to Section 38, the longstanding insurable
interest law in Alaska, a phrase was added that the ACLI
believes would make the laws less certain. She referred to page
36, line 3, which adds the language, "or immediately after the
contract was made" and noted it's a longstanding principle that
insurable interest exists at the time of the contract and not
anytime afterwards. She was unsure of how to define immediately
after the contract and whether it would mean two seconds, 30
minutes, or 30 days after the contract is signed.
4:31:51 PM
MS. NATION then explained that an insurable interest is
necessary in order for one person or entity to take out a life
insurance policy on another person; it's important to ensure
that any beneficiary of a life insurance policy wants the
insured person to live a long time and not seek an early demise
to collect the insurance money. In fact, the whole principle in
taking out life insurance is so a person's family and loved
ones, business parner, and company relies on the person to stay
alive to provide economic benefit or love and affection. She
concluded this is the reason why every jurisdiction has an
insurable interest law that says that insurable interest has to
exist at the time the contract is made and represents the
turning point as to whether a valid life insurance policy
exists. Inserting the language [on page 36, line 3] calls into
question whether an insurable interest exists and if it is a
valid life insurance policy. She said it could cause problems
in terms of whether the insurance policy is valid and whether
the beneficiary can collect. Therefore, the ACLI prefers not to
amend Section 38(a) because the current law is clear and the
proposed language would create uncertainty in Alaska law.
4:33:56 PM
MS. NATION then directed attention to proposed Section 13, pages
16-18, regarding trustee duties related to insurance. Upon
discussions with the sponsor, she was informed that a similar
statute passed in Florida. Since it appears that Alaska is
following the Florida law enacted in 2010, she requested that
her [written] comments regarding Section 13 be withdrawn since
it appears to address her concerns. In response to
Representative Josephson, Ms. Nation said that ACLI has no real
interest in the balance of HB 102, except for the proposed
change to Section 38.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether she has previously seen
the proposed language on page 36, line 3, "or immediately after
the contract was made".
MS. NATION answered no; not in the context of true insurable
interest. She said she has seen proposals by people in the
secondary market, the life settlements industry, to attempt to
change state insurable interest laws to provide for "sell to
settle policies." For example, a situation in which a senior
citizens is enticed to take out a large life insurance policy
with the promise of a cruise to the Bahamas or some other
incentive to use the senior's insurability to take out a life
insurance policy and sell it to a secondary market investor.
4:37:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if someone could provide the
rationale to make the proposed changes.
MR. BLATTMACHR said he drafted the bill and offered his belief
that the language in Section 38 clarifies the law. Although he
said he did not think Ms. Nation's notion that the language
"immediately after" could be five months was a sustainable
position, he suggested the language could be changed to read
"immediately upon the contract being made" or similar language.
In doing so, Ms. Nation would not need to be concerned that it
could be a millisecond after the policy is issued. Mr.
Blattmachr agreed with Ms. Nation that it is important to ensure
the law does not encourage murder as evidenced by one of the
leading decisions by Justice Holmes, who said it is important to
balance people's rights to make contracts and the right to keep
people from being murdered. Therefore, as long as the person
has an interest in making sure that the person lives rather than
benefiting if the person dies, then the policy has to be issued.
He did not think Ms. Nation would disagree with that. He
explained that sometimes insurance policies have an annuity
feature and if a person owns an annuity, the person doesn't want
them to die. These annuities are often imbedded in policies,
but the person may not have a full insurable interest until that
annuity part of the policy is issued. Therefore, he wanted to
ensure that if the insurable interest is there at the moment the
policy is issued, then the person should be deemed to have an
insurable interest. He assured Ms. Nation that this proposal
has nothing to do with the secondary life insurance market. The
industry has been against the stranger own life insurance
(STOLI) and [this proposed language change to Section 38] in no
way promotes STOLI.
4:40:41 PM
CHAIR OLSON inquired as to the difference in the meaning of the
proposed language in Section 38, "or immediately after the
contract was made", and Mr. Blattmachr's suggested change to
that language, "immediately upon the contract being made". He
further asked why the language change is necessary.
MR. BLATTMACHR answered that the reason is to ensure that if an
interest arises at the time a policy is issued that the person
would be deemed to have an insurable interest and make sure the
person continues to live.
CHAIR OLSON asked why the change couldn't be made before the
contract was issued. He asked Mr. Kolb to respond.
MR. KOLB said it seemed redundant, although he cautioned that he
is not a lawyer. He thought "or immediately after the contract
was made" appears to say the same thing as "or immediately
before the contract was made."
4:42:13 PM
MR. BLATTMACHR informed the committee that this issue arose
after he spoke to agents in New York who develop what are known
as private placement life insurance policies, which are the very
large polices now coming to Alaska and for which Alaska receives
the premium tax. The parties, he explained, wanted
clarification and suggested that "immediately after" language
would suffice since it meant immediately after the contract was
made. He said, "But I can't prove that there isn't a time
between when the policy is issued and immediately thereafter.
So, in order to satisfy the people who want to send these
polices through the State of Alaska, we're now suggesting it say
'immediately when the contract is made' and I think that
addresses the concerns that Ms. Nation mentioned."
4:43:02 PM
CHAIR OLSON acknowledged that several members are concerned, and
therefore HB 102 will be held over. Further, a legal opinion on
the language will be sought. Chair Olson, noting his insurance
background, said he does not see the purpose of the language.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB102 ver A.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Supporting Documents-American Bar Association All About Trusts.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Supporting Documents-Contracts Clause Issue.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Supporting Documents-Email Brenda Nation-Amer Council of Life Insurers 2-22-2013.pdf |
HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Supporting Documents-Leg Legal Memo 1-29-2013.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Supporting Documents-Letter Northrim Bank 2-19-2013.pdf |
HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Supporting Documents-Letter-Keating Stein 6-24-2010.pdf |
HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Supporting Documents-NCCUSL Insurable Interest FINAL July 2010.pdf |
HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Supporting Documents-Single Subject Rule.pdf |
HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Draft Proposed Amendment A.1.pdf |
HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Fiscal Note-DOA-DRB-2-22-13.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Fiscal Note-DCCED-DOI-02-22-13.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Fiscal Note-DOR-TRS-02-22-13.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Fiscal Note-LAW-CIV-02-22-13.pdf |
HJUD 3/27/2013 1:00:00 PM HL&C 2/25/2013 3:15:00 PM |
HB 102 |