Legislative Update

The Utah legislature convenes every year from January to the early part of March. Robert J. DeBry & Associates tries to monitor that legislation which could impact persons who have suffered injuries due to the negligent conduct of others. This year, several pieces of legislation will impact individuals who have suffered such injuries. A summary of that legislation includes:

1. House Bill 124 (Representative Urquhart). House Bill 124 increases the small claims jurisdictional amount from $5,000 to $7,500. This legislation also will allow non-lawyers to represent individuals in certain circumstances. Non-lawyers who represent small claims court litigants will be subject to the Utah simplified rules of small claims procedures (proposed rules on this issue are available at http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/comments). The legislation will also require non-lawyers who represent small claims court litigants to live within certain rules that the Utah Supreme Court will create.

2. House Bill 325 (Representative Bennion). This piece of legislation was supported by Robert J. DeBry & Associates. It modifies §31A-22-303. In the past, there have been occasions when an insurance company for an at-fault driver has tried to take advantage of an individual injured by a negligent driver because the injured person did not have auto insurance at the time of the accident. The at-fault driver insurance company has, in the past, tried to convince Utah courts that because the injured person did not have automobile insurance at the time of the accident, the at-fault driver's insurance need not pay that compensation which the injured party would have received from the injured party's own insurance-had the injured party had coverage. However, under Utah law, the at-fault driver's insurance is always obligated to repay an injured person's automobile no-fault insurance. That is, the injured person having auto coverage does not benefit the at-fault driver’s insurance. Therefore, the at-fault driver's insurance was simply trying to reduce benefits on the basis that an injured party did not have auto insurance coverage. This is true even though the injured person was not at fault in causing the accident.

House Bill 325 should prevent insurance companies from trying to reduce fair compensation because of the injured party's uninsured status.

4. Senate Bill 55 (Senator Blackham). Senate Bill 55 was a complete revision of the governmental immunity act. This legislation resulted from a task force which met over a period of several months. This task force included representatives of state and local government as well as attorneys for the Utah Trial Lawyers Association. A representative from Robert J. DeBry & Associates was on the task force.

This legislation made the following changes to the governmental immunity statute:

1. This legislation reorganizes the governmental immunity statute so that it is much easier to read. The prior act starts out by indicating all governmental entities are immune from suit. The immunity is then waived for specific types of governmental actions. Exceptions to the waiver of immunity are then found throughout the act. Trying to keep track of what activities are either directly immune or are an exception to the waiver of immunity could be a complicated task.

2. A claim against a governmental entity often requires a notice of claim be properly filed within one year from the date of the injury. The current legislation includes an exception to this time limit based on when the injured person knew or should have known that a governmental entity was the one that caused the injury.

3. The legislation clarifies that an injured person under the age of 18 might have the one year time limit tolled during the person's minority.

4. The legislation requires a listing of all governmental entities be kept by an appropriate governmental entity. This should make locating the responsible governmental entity much easier.

5. Once a notice of claim was filed, the old law allowed the governmental entity 90 days to respond. The legislation will reduce this 90-day time to 60 days.

6. The legislation clarifies the fact that a notice of claim can be hand-delivered, mailed, or otherwise "directed and delivered."

7. Finally, the legislation will not become effective until January 1, 2005. This time delay will provide the government time to set up procedures needed by the changes in the act.

E. Senate Bill 232 (Senator Blackham). Presently, individuals employed by a governmental entity that make proper use of emergency lights and siren enjoy unfettered immunity for their actions. That is, as long as proper use of lights and siren is being made, a driver of an emergency vehicle can act with disregard for the safety of others, and injuries caused by such disregard are immune from remedy. This legislation will require drivers of emergency vehicles to act in the same reasonably safe manner as other emergency vehicle drivers. The failure to do so will be actionable by those persons injured.

F. Senate Bill 225 (Senator Eastman). The statutory language of §31A-22-305, addressing uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage, has always been fairly complex. In 2003, the legislature modified the statutory language to simplify the same. However, in the years from 1999 to 2003, the language governing uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage was fairly complicated. The Utah Supreme Court recently held that, during the subject time period of 1999 to 2003, an individual suffering severe injuries from an automobile accident might be able to stack multiple policies in a single household when looking for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. The court's opnion was in conflict with the legislative intent of the statute during that time. Therefore, in 2004, the legislature passed Senate Bill 225 to clarify their intent of the statutory language in those prior years. Senate Bill 225 did carry a constitutional note. That is, the legislative lawyers were unclear whether this bill would withstand a constitutional challenge.

G. Senate Bill 245 (Senator Blackham). Prior to the session opening in 2004, there was a lot of media attention to Intermountain Healthcare's requirement that patients sign an arbitration agreement. In the legislative session of 2003, the legislature passed a bill which would allow the medical industry to require patients submit to arbitration. If a patient refused to sign an arbitration agreement, the medical providers could refuse care (there were some exceptions for emergency care, etc.).

In 2004, Senator Blackham introduced Senate Bill 245, which eliminated the right of a health care provider to deny service to a patient who refused to agree to arbitration. Further, this legislation requires the medical provider to provide a written explanation to the patient about the details of arbitration. The patient would have ten days after the patient signs the arbitration agreement to revoke the same.

In addition to the legislative bills set forth above, Robert J. DeBry & Associates monitored a substantial amount of other legislation which ultimately did not pass the legislature.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us directly.