Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/09/1994 10:10 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 292
"An Act relating to civil actions; amending Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure 49 and 68; and providing for
an effective date."
SHERRIE GOLL, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY spoke in opposition to HB
292. She maintained that the legislation will limit the
rights of women and children to be justly compensated when
they are the victims of someone else's reckless and careless
conduct. She pointed out that there is a $10.0 thousand
dollars cap on non-economic damages for a single person's
death as the result of negligence. She gave examples of
claims that would be limited or barred by the legislation.
Ms. Goll noted that there is no mandate to lower insurance
premiums. She discussed the cap on non-economic damages.
She maintained that non-economic damages can be articulated.
She asserted that caps adversely affect those that are
catastrophically injured. She questioned the cap placed on
7
catastrophically injured individuals and the definitions of
"catastrophic." She noted that the Alaska Women's Lobby and
Kidpac have problems with several portions of the bill. She
urged that the bill not be moved.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER explained that the $10.0
thousand dollars cap on non-economic damages is for non-
dependents. He clarified that there are three categories of
damages, economic, non-economic and punitive. He briefly
defined the categories. He noted that dependents can
recover economic damages. He observed that amendments have
been adopted to alleviate concerns. He noted that the
legislation does not contain caps for economic damages. He
further discussed caps contained in the bill.
Representative Parnell MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 1 on behalf
of Representative Porter (copy on file). Representative
Porter explained that amendment 1 would insert "prolonged
exposure to hazardous waste" as an exception to the statute
of repose. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Porter provided members with AMENDMENT 2
(copy on file). He explained that the amendment would place
in statute civil rule 11. The amendment is aimed at
reducing the motivation of filing specious lawsuits. The
amendment would require sanctions from the court. The court
"shall" implement sanctions of up to $10.0 thousand dollars
if it rules that a case without merit.
Representative Parnell MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 2.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
testified that the amendment would mandate the court to
place sanctions. He recommended that the court retain
discretion. He suggested that the amendment may increase
the Alaska Court System's fiscal note.
MIKE FORD, LEGAL COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY
stressed that the amendment could be interpreted to cover
specious motions or pleading. He suggested that the
amendment could act as a disincentive for specious actions.
Representative Brown OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken
on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Navarre, Hanley, Martin, Parnell,
Therriault, MacLean, Larson
OPPOSED: Brown
Representatives Foster and Hoffman were absent from the
vote.
8
The MOTION PASSED (8-1).
Mr. Ford gave a brief overview of legislative history of
tort reform.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-118, Side 1)
Mr. Ford briefly reviewed the legislation by section.
Representative Porter clarified that an injury accrues at
the time that the injury is discovered or reasonably should
have been discovered as opposed to the time the injury
occurred.
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 3 (copy
on file). She explained that amendment 3 would make the
purpose section consistent with the findings. The amendment
would insert "except in a few limited circumstances" to
acknowledge that some injuries will not be compensated.
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 3.
JEFF FELDMAN, ATTORNEY, ALASKA TRIAL LAWYERS asserted that
false statements are made in both the findings and purpose
sections of the legislation. He maintained that the
legislation would exclude a great number of claims beyond a
limited set of circumstances.
MIKE LEISMEIR, ATTORNEY disagreed with Mr. Feldman. He
alleged that circumstances which are specifically defined
will be effected.
Representative Navarre stressed that the legislation will
bar all kinds of claims. He stated that the legislation
reduces the cost of litigation by barring claims. He
estimated that the state would pick up the cost of injured
parties.
Representative Martin OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken
on the MOTION to adopt amendment 3.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Hanley, Parnell,
Therriault, MacLean, Larson
OPPOSED: Martin
Representatives Foster and Hoffman were absent from the
vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-1).
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 4 (copy
9
on file). She explained that amendment 4 would remove the
statute of repose proposal from the legislation. She
emphasized that the Attorney General suggested that the
proposal may be unconstitutional.
Mr. Feldman agreed that the statute of repose provision
would be held unconstitutional by the court. He explained
that the statute of repose would divide citizens into
separate classes.
He maintained that the provision will create more
litigation.
Mr. Leismeir stressed that the issue is whether the
legislature has the authority to adopt a statute of repose.
He disagreed that the Supreme Court would reject any statute
of repose. He held that the proposal applies equally to all
parties.
Representative Martin discussed the section of severability.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND recommended that the Committee
consider the Attorney General's opinion. He quoted the
opinion as stating: "We believe that the Alaska Supreme
Court will probably find the proposed statute of repose
invalid under several alternative provisions of the Alaska
Constitution including; equal protection, due process,
obligation of contracts, and right to a jury trial."
Representative Parnell noted that lawyers can differ.
Mr. Feldman stressed that class distinctions are not the
same under the statute of repose. He gave examples of
differentials of when citizens could bring their claim to
court.
Representative Brown emphasized that the statute of repose
provision would barr claims after six years. She gave
examples of cases where individuals would not be able to
seek compensation.
Representative Porter spoke in support of the statute of
repose provision. Discussion pursued regarding theoretical
cases involving the proposed statute of repose provision.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-118, Side 2)
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
4.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Navarre, Larson, MacLean
OPPOSED: Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault
10
Representatives Foster, Grussendorf and Hoffman were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-4).
Representative Brown provided members with AMENDMENT 5 (copy
on file). She explained that amendment 5 would delete
personal injury and death from the statute of repose.
Mr. Ford stated that the amendment would remove references
to personal injury. The six year statute of repose
pertaining to property damage would remain.
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 4.
Mr. Ford maintained that the amendment would reduce
constitutional issues.
Representatives Brown and MacLean spoke in support of the
amendment. Representative Porter spoke in opposition to the
amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
5.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, MacLean
OPPOSED: Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault, Larson
Representatives Foster, Grussendorf and Hoffman were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 6 (copy on
file). She explained that amendment 6 would delete
manufactured products from the statute of repose. She
asserted that out-of-state manufacturers would be protected
at the expense of Alaskan citizens.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND spoke in support of amendment 6.
Representative Porter spoke in opposition to amendment 6.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
6.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, MacLean
OPPOSED: Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault, Larson
Representatives Foster, Grussendorf and Hoffman were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
11
Representative MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 7 (copy on file).
She explained that amendment 7 would delete "an intentional
or reckless disregard of specific" and insert "a failure to
follow applicable."
Mr. Ford explained that the amendment would broaden the
language of the bill.
Mr. Feldman emphasized that proving "intentional or reckless
disregard" is virtually impossible.
Representative Porter stressed the difference between simple
or gross negligence. He noted that it is difficult to
defend against actions which took place prior to six years.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt AMENDMENT
7.
IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Larson
OPPOSED: Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault,
Representatives Foster, Grussendorf, MacLean and Hoffman
were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-4).
Representative Brown MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT 8 (copy on
file). She explained that amendment 8 would change statute
of repose provisions from 6 to 15 years. She noted that HB
160 contains a 15 year statute of repose provision.
Mr. Ford cautioned against adopting legislation with
different periods for statute of repose. Representative
Porter spoke in support of a six year statute of repose.
Representative Parnell MOVED to AMEND Amendment 8, delete
"15 years" and insert "10 years". Representative Brown
OBJECTED. Discussion pursued regarding periods for a
statute of repose. A roll call vote was taken on the
MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault, Larson
OPPOSED: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre
The MOTION PASSED (5-3).
HB 292 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|