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.