CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON SB 297B
August 22, 2003 Hearing Room 357
8:00 a.m. Tapes 1 - 2
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen.
John Minnis, Chair
Rep. Gordon Anderson
Sen. Charlie Ringo
Rep. Jeff Barker
Rep. Max Williams
STAFF PRESENT: Craig
Prins, Counsel
Patsy Wood, Office Coordinator
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: SB 297B Work Session
These minutes are in
compliance with Senate and House Rules.
Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact
words. For complete contents,
please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
TAPE 1, A |
||
|
008 |
Chair Minnis |
Calls the meeting to order
at 8:15 a.m. and opens a work session on SB 297B. |
|
SB 297B WORK SESSION |
||
|
012 |
Rep. Max Williams |
Describes the procedures
taken by the House Judiciary Committee to arrive at the current version of SB
297B. |
|
026 |
Craig Prins |
Committee Counsel. Explains SB 297B which requires insurer to
pay all sums covered by general liability insurance policy unaffected by
other insurance that may provide coverage for same environmental claim. Describes the B22 amendments submitted by
Rep. Ackerman (EXHIBIT A). |
|
041 |
Keith Leavitt |
Port of Portland. Discusses the two reasons for the B27
amendments (EXHIBIT B): 1)
allocation issue and 2) distinction between defense and indemnity. |
|
076 |
Leavitt |
Describes why the
definition of “uninsured” in these amendments dates back to 1971. |
|
101 |
Leavitt |
Discusses the distinction
between defense costs and indemnity. Says
there is nothing in the bill that shifts liability from the policy holder to
the insurance company. |
|
122 |
Rep. Barker |
Expresses his concerns
about using the 1971 date for the availability of insurance. |
|
128 |
Leavitt |
Reiterates why the 1971
date was chosen. |
|
151 |
John DiLorenzo |
ICN Pharmaceuticals. Speaks to the B29 amendments (EXHIBIT C). Notes these amendments will work with or
without the B27 amendments. Gives
background on numerous lawsuits which have lead to these amendments. |
|
217 |
Sen. Ringo |
Questions the
“re-allocation provision” of the legislation; wonders why it makes sense to
create a system where you can settle with one party preventing another party
from seeking contribution from the first settling party. |
|
227 |
DiLorenzo |
Speaks to the issue of
contribution rights in this type of case and defense from further lawsuits. |
|
262 |
Sen. Ringo |
Explains the B28
amendments which reflect the original concept of the bill which was designed
to help consumers who were being denied their right to a jury trial (EXHIBIT D). |
|
300 |
Rep. Barker |
Wonders if waiving his
right to a jury trial would affect the price of an insurance policy. |
|
307 |
Sen. Ringo |
Responds with examples of
disputes that could be affected by mandatory arbitration clauses. |
|
336 |
Rep. Barker |
Agrees there can be
problems when buying insurance, but thinks waiving the right to a jury trial
in a large policy could cut the cost of the policy. |
|
345 |
Sen. Ringo |
Says this amendment is focused
on any consumer contract - not just insurance policies. |
|
351 |
Rep. Williams |
Speaks to the
effectiveness of mandatory binding arbitration in some instances. |
|
405 |
Sen. Ringo |
Responds with his
experience with arbitration citing some can lead to reduced access to justice. |
|
435 |
Rep. Anderson |
Comments on his experience
with arbitration saying, though fair, he would much rather go through a jury
trial. |
|
TAPE 2, A |
||
|
017 |
Sen. Ringo |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 297B-28 amendments dated
08/21/03. |
|
019 |
Rep. Barker |
Asks for clarification on
the amendment. |
|
021 |
Sen. Ringo |
Explains these amendments
would relate to small-dollar, consumer action and would not impact large
lawsuits. |
|
032 |
|
VOTE: 2-3 AYE: 2 - Sen. Minnis, Ringo NAY: 3 - Rep. Anderson, Barker,
Williams |
|
036 |
Chair Minnis |
The motion
Fails. |
|
044 |
Jack Munro |
The American Insurance
Association. Discusses the B27
amendments regarding allocation and contribution (Exhibit B). Feels the
effect of these amendments says that nobody would be uninsured. |
|
103 |
Chair Minnis |
Doesn’t share the same
understanding regarding being “uninsured” and asks for further clarification. |
|
124 |
Munro |
Refers to lines 17 through
19 of the B27 amendments which leads back to the determination of uninsured. |
|
158 |
John Powell |
North Pacific Insurance
Company, American International Group and State Farm Insurance Companies. Uses the chalkboard to describe a timeline
for determining when a party is uninsured for the purpose of allocation. |
|
178 |
Chair Minnis |
Asks if the uninsured time
is limited to the total amount of liability expressed in the policy. |
|
185 |
Powell |
Says, no, with a
qualifier. Explains the insurer is
liable for the indemnity limit of the policy plus unlimited defense costs. |
|
217 |
Chair Minnis |
Questions the defense
costs. |
|
218 |
Powell |
Responds that defense
costs would accrue under this legislation. |
|
229 |
Munro |
Discusses other problems
with the definition of “uninsured” in the B27 amendments. |
|
254 |
Chair Minnis |
Asks why an insurer
wouldn’t settle for the amount of the policy rather than incur defense costs
in a lawsuit. |
|
260 |
Greg Baird |
Attorney, Gordon &
Polscer, LLP. States that no insured
would accept that figure if they had defense cost claims far exceeding that
figure. |
|
266 |
Chair Minnis |
Still questions why an
insurer wouldn’t just pay the initial amount of the policy to avoid
litigation costs. |
|
270 |
Baird |
Responds that the insured
will recognize defense costs are unlimited under the policy. |
|
274 |
Chair Minnis |
Asks if a policy which
actually covered unlimited defense costs is a contract. |
|
280 |
Baird |
Responds that the issue is
who takes care of the defense costs when the litigation covers multiple loss
over multiple years. Says courts and
insurers have allocated defense costs among the various periods during which
the contamination has taken place. |
|
289 |
Munro |
Says commercial general
liability policies were written with pollution exclusions, but the courts
interpreted those exclusions differently.
Says the Oregon State Bar’s PLF policy is the only policy in Oregon that
limits the defense cost obligation by contract. Discusses the problem with “reasonable commercial terms” (line
15 of the B27 amendments) as being an undefined phrase. |
|
331 |
Chair Minnis |
Goes back to the timeline
and asks what happened between 1971 and 2003. |
|
333 |
Munro |
Indicates the limitations
of this proposed legislation. |
|
351 |
Baird |
Explains why the date 1985
should be added to the timeline. |
|
382 |
Munro |
Comments on the B29
amendments (Exhibit C) saying they
appear more open-ended than what Mr. DiLorenzo intended. |
|
TAPE 1, B |
||
|
007 |
Tom Gallagher |
Schnitzer Steel
Industries. Discusses how they are
willing to modify the “all sums” piece of the policy for a share of the defense
costs. |
|
045 |
Chair Minnis |
Wonders about the
definition of “an Oregon insurance company” on line 15 of the B27 amendments. |
|
047 |
Gallagher |
Isn’t sure if it means an
insurance company licensed to do business in Oregon or domiciled in Oregon. |
|
051 |
Chair Minnis |
Alleges it is an insurance
company licensed to do business in Oregon. |
|
052 |
Gallagher |
Agrees. Continues his discussion of actions for
remedial investigation. |
|
078 |
DiLorenzo |
Rebuts. States under which
circumstances the B29 amendment will apply. |
|
101 |
Chair Minnis |
Notes that the conferees
are not in agreement about which amendments to adopt. |
|
105 |
Rep. Williams |
Says he will prepare a memorandum
to the Speaker of the House to consider discharging the House conferees. |
|
111 |
Chair Minnis |
Closes the work session on
SB 297B and adjourns the meeting at 9:15 a.m. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY
A – SB 297B, -B22 amendments dated 8/4/03,
submitted by Rep. Bob Ackerman, 1 pg
B – SB 297B, -B27 amendments dated 8/19/03,
submitted by staff, 2 pgs
C – SB 297B, -B29 amendments dated 8/21/03,
submitted by staff, 1 pg
D – SB 297B, -B28 amendments dated 8/21/03,
submitted by Sen. Charlie Ringo, 3 pgs