Alaska Legislature: House Labor & Commerce, 3/23/26, 3:15pm

Yes.

I call the House Labour and Commerce Committee to order. Members present are Representative S Frear, Fields, Hall and online is Rep Carrick. We have a quorum. Please silence your cell phones. Thank you Andrew Magnuson and Renzo Moises for committee and teleconferencing support today. We have three bills on the agenda and I think we're gonna return to floor a four, so we're gonna try and get through them efficiently.

Those are HB 363, HB 155 and HB 306. First step is HB 363, alcohol sales by patriotic organizations. Thank you Representative Stutz and Jane Pearson for being here. After the g come on up Representative Stutz, and after Representative Stutz presents we do have invited testimony.

Thank you. Nice to see you.

Uh for the record, um I'm Louise Stutes, representative from District Five, Kodiak, Cordova, Seward and a multitude of small coastal communities. Thank you for hearing House Bill three sixty three today. Um

Let me tell you a little bit about it. It pertains to alcohol sales by patriotic organizations. Patriotic organizations are non-partisan, not-for-profit organizations committed to preserving, promoting and celebrating

National pride in advocating for veterans,

soldiers, and their communities.

The American Legion was the first patriotic organization in America chartered and incorporated in Congress in 1919 after World War I.

Its role was to advocate for veterans and to work towards securing veteran benefits.

Like the GI Bill and the establishment of the V.A.

medical care system, today patriotic organizations thrive, they remain committed to their original missions while also offering programs and activities that strengthen the community. Their organizations sponsor youth sports,

Sport programs advocate for patriotism and honor and promote national security and continue their devotion to their fellow service members and veterans.

Patriotic organizations provide a unique place for soldiers,

veterans and their families and guests to socialize by providing a community space for like-minded Alaskans.

The impetus for House Bill 363 came from the American Legion Post number five in Seward, Alaska, and this bill accomplishes two things. First, it allows patriotic organizations to sell alcoholic beverages to members other than patriotic organizations incorporated under Alaska's Nonprofit Corporation Act, and processing club licenses under Title IV.

The change allows for better parity between veterans and active duty member military personnel.

Currently, active duty military personnel may be served alcoholic beverages under A.S. 0409220, sub-section D,

number three.

Currently, however, it does not allow

Veterans who are members of other patriotic organizations to be served in an organization that they are not a member of.

This bill would have a reciprocating membership.

So if you are a member of the American Legion,

you could go to the VFW without being a member and be served. The second thing it does is it allows

a patriotic organization under a permitted event key phrase there to serve liquor as well as beer and wine. Currently if there is a function and you are not a member of an organization and you go into a patriotic organization you will only be able to order beer and wine and this expands that to spirits as well.

Basically, those are the two things, not basically, clearly those are the two things that this bill does.

It just makes these patriotic organizations more of a gathering place,

more homey for our veterans, and as we know the success of patriotic organizations depends.

lies entirely on the active membership and the participation and volunteerism of our veterans.

These organizations belong to the people

and the communities they serve.

and

Very good. Thank you, Representative Tuts. Let's forego the sectional analysis given the time crunch.

First up and invited testimony is Michael Calhoun of American Legion Post 5.

Mr. Calhoun, thank you for proceeding with your testimony.

Well, this

Thank you, Chairman and committee.

I started this because we wanted to be able to take care of all the veterans that come to visit Seward. We are the only veterans organization,

patriotic organization in Seward.

We have been chartered since 1919.

When the American Legion started, we got our charter that year with one of five posts in Alaska that did,

and so we're a big part of the community.

When we have other veterans that come and visit Seward, if they're VFW members or they're AMBIT members like that,

they don't have another veterans organization to go visit here in town,

and so they'll come here. This would allow us to...

treat them basically when it comes to service here as if they were a member without them having to be the guest of a member at which case they would need to know somebody and that individual would need to agree to pay for all of their alcoholic beverages because yes they're not allowed to pay for alcohol in these organizations in Alaska.

And that was the impetus for that part of HB363 was to give us the flexibility to be able to welcome all veterans that come to visit Seward and be able to take care of them and have the camaraderie as all veterans like to do. And the other part of that with the nonprofit event permits.

When we hold an event here at Post 5,

for example, on the 4th of July, Memorial Day,

a fundraiser for one of the school athletic clubs, something like that,

we get a nonprofit event permit, as it reads, it only allows us to serve non-members beer and wine.

Club liquor license holder in our social area we have a full bar of liquor to be able to serve to our membership and it would it would just make things a lot simpler to be able to serve that full bar during those special events and not have to separate out whether I can only serve an individual or my bartenders can only serve an individual beer and wine.

or if they're able to serve them the full bar,

and that was the impetus for that part of the bill.

Thank you, Mr.

Calhoun.

Next up, invited testimony.

Mr.

Calhoun, do you mind staying on the line for questions after we finish invited testimony?

Absolutely,

I'm here.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Next up,

Justin Mills,

commander of Jack Henry Post 1,

American Legion.

Mr.

Mills, thank you for being here for invited testimony.

Okay.

Thank you. Good afternoon,

Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Justin Mills. I'm speaking today on behalf of American Legion Post 1,

which is Anchorage, Alaska,

and has been serving the veteran community since 1919.

The American Legion exists clearly to support veterans,

military families,

and our local communities.

Folks like ours operate under a nonprofit community hub.

We host memorial ceremonies,

provide support to veterans in need,

organize youth programs,

and raise funds for charitable causes across Alaska.

However, under the current law,

our ability to host public community events include alcohol service is unnecessarily limited,

even when those events are organized by the nonprofit under the proper.

proper permits with all proceeds going directly back to the veteran programs and community services.

House Bill 363 provides a practical and responsible solution.

They'll simply allow state-sanctioned organizations like the American Legion or the VFW to more easily host these events and sell alcoholic beverages under this non-profit permit just like many other non-profit organizations already can.

This matters because these events are often a primary fundraising opportunity and they support things like emergency assistance for veterans.

Scholarships and youth programs,

community service projects,

and memorial and patriotic ceremonies.

Allowing us to host these events legally and transparently helps ensure that more of the funds will go back to the community and the veterans we serve.

Importantly, the bill still maintains the safeguards that ensure proceeds remain with the nonprofit organizations and not individuals.

In short, this legislation helps patriotic organizations remain financially sustainable while continuing to serve Alaska.

Alaska's veterans and communities.

On behalf of Post 1,

I respectfully urge your support of House Bill 363.

Thank you so much for your time supporting Alaska veterans.

Thank you, Mr. Mills.

In addition to the bill sponsor and the two invited testifiers, Kevin Richard,

director of the Alcohol Marijuana Control Office, is online.

Do members have questions?

I have.

Go ahead, Representative Clem.

Thank you, Chair. So when the sectional - I guess it's section five - and this is just my ignorance, but it says this section repeals language that required reciprocity agreements between organizations. Why are we repealing that and what is a reciprocity agreement?

What?

Why are we repealing that? And what's what. What is a reciprocity? Reciprocity agreement through the chair.

Through the Chair, Representative Colome, thank you for that question.

Last year, inadvertently, there was a clause put into legislation that said

In order to have the reciprocity between the different organizations you had to go to the state organization and get an okay from them before you could do it and it was just a lot of extra paperwork so this repeals that and says clearly if you're a member of the American Legion and you show your membership card

It's between you and the local um V_F_W_ They let you in, d you don't need to go through the state organization anymore.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Not seeing further questions, the amendment deadline for House Bill 363

is Tuesday,

March 24th, 5 p.m. We'll return to this bill at the next committee meeting. Thank you, Representative Stutes, for being here. Next item on the agenda. Yes,

Could you

Representative Sadler.

Could you say again the time tomorrow? The deadline?

Uh five

please?

p m. Yep,

Five

five

p.m.

p.m. tomorrow, tomorrow is

okay.

the amendment deadline.

Wow, great.

Thank you. Thank you Chair Field,

Co Chair Fields and Co Chair Hall and the committee.

Thank you, Representative Stutes. And next up, House Bill 155, alcohol sales local option by Representative Foster. Thank you, Paul LeBowl, for presenting this bill.

And thank you, Kevin Richard, for remaining online for questions.

Hello, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Paul LeBowl, staff to Representative Foster.

Uh

The bill before you here, House Bill 155, is a local option law amendment. Now Alaska's local options are the way that communities are allowed to ban alcohol sales to certain degrees. There are five types of local options. You can ban sale,

you can ban sale by specific license type, you can ban sale except by a municipally operated license,

you can ban sale and importation,

and you can ban sale, importation, and possession. What House Bill 155 does is add a new local option so that you could have a municipally operated liquor store, but the bar and restaurant license

could be owned by private industry. That is not allowed under the current suite of options.

Okay. Uh looks like Representative Sadler has a question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. LeBowl, just say that last bit again? So allows a city owned package store to exist in a municipality, and also a separately owned private

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yep.

restaurant or liquor store.

Please just say again that there's a defined

specific definition,

I want to make sure I have it clear in my mind.

Okay. Uh yes, thank you. So you were correct, and what it would do is allow the municipality to run the package store, and it would leave the restaurant licence and dispensary licence to private industry.

Gotcha.

And follow up.

Yes.

Uh does this preclude a municipality from having the restaurant and dispensary licence, or just make it an option?

Thank you. That would be handled under uh existing option three if they wanted to do that.

And that would take action by the municipality to well, okay.

Uh in

So

in order

there is a

to enact a local option, you have to have a local option election.

Okay. Clear as mud.

Further questions on this bill?

Excuse me?

Go ahead.

And thank you Chair. So what I I'm sorry I'm not really familiar with all the legal options, but what what is the problem you're trying to solve? Like where did this where did this come from?

This came to us from a constituent in Nome.

Okay.

Right now Nome does not operate a local

option, but there is interest in the municipality operating the package store.

Oh.

But they can't do that without also having to take over and manage the restaurant licences and the dispensary licences.

Okay, alright. Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, further questions.

Mm-hmm.

Looks like no. The amendment deadline for House Bill 155 is Thursday, March 26th at 5 p.m. Thank you, Mr. LeBowl. Last bill on the agenda today is House Bill 306, provision of alcohol civil liability. I introduced this bill and I think my staff person, Evan Anderson, can give a short presentation on what it does and then we have a couple of invited testifiers

to elaborate on the need for this bill. Thank you, Evan Anderson, for being here.

For the record, Evan Anderson, staff to Rep. Fields. I'll be presenting House Bill 306, provision of alcohol and civil liability. House Bill 306 clarifies civil liability standards for persons who provide alcoholic beverages in Alaska. Current law generally protects licensed providers from civil liability for injuries caused by an intoxicated person, but House Bill 306 updates and refines the exceptions to that rule.

um

Essentially the need for this bill has come about because liability insurance for restaurants and bars is - prices are skyrocketing around the state. In the sponsor statement, you'll find some recent reported numbers. Liability insurance rates have doubled, tripled, quadrupled in some instances, and I believe there's just one provider on the market for this

insurance product, which is part of why it's become so expensive. The current statute, AS

Title 4 AS 04.21.020A, requires a burden of proof currently and what this bill would do is change it so that

it would require clear and convincing evidence that the individual was overserved in the establishment. One thing that this bill also does is, for the first time, this seems like kind of a statutory cleanup, but it was surprising to me reading current title four, it's actually not

part of the current civil liability laws that people, anybody who's served after the lawful hours of operation of the establishment have concluded. So this bill captures those as an additional civil liability provision

Mm-hmm.

now. So I think I'll stop there for any questions.

Thank you, Evan Anderson. I'll just give one example um to illustrate the need

For this bill, um the manager of Glacier Brew House who is actually a representative representative Sadler or um a constituent representative Sadler was explaining that under current law

if a patron of Glacier Brew House orders a beer and then drinks three beers somewhere else somewhere later at a friend's house and then gets in a car wreck, that uh the Gla- Glacier Brew House could be held accountable for that. That is the cause of the rising liability rates because liability goes all the way down the chain to anyone who served a drink, even if that was the first drink of the night and there's no way the server

Could have known that they would subsequently drink three more drinks. So that is the problem um that this bill is trying to solve and I appreciate many local business owners bringing it to my attention. Uh go ahead, represent Sadler.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The testifier made a reference to after hours serving. I wasn't quite clear which point, what point you're trying to make. You're making some reference so please state that clearly through the chair.

Through the chair, it's Rep. Sadler for the record, Evan Anderson.

I believe in the sectional analysis or in the bill itself, it's subsection two

Yep.

Page

What

The bill just has two pages. So on page two of the bill, subsection C, when someone, when the establishment knowingly sells, gives or barters to a person after the lawful hours of operation of the establishment have concluded, that's the first time that this - this is all new language in the civil liability section of title four.

I'm

Don't

so sorry. For reference, I'm looking at version G, page two.

Representative

What line are you speaking of again, please?

Lines five through seven.

Five through seven. Very good. Okay, thanks.

Five through seven.

Very good.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, let's go ahead with if are there other questions right now or should we do invite testimony?

I had one short question,

Go for it.

Just for clarification. So if the problem is that the liability is going down the chain, so like on line fourteen, convincing evidence and you kind of knowingly sold given bartered drunken person in violation of - does that fix the problem?

Just

That

clarifying that.

um represent one that is a great question. I think it's clear what we're trying to fix, which is skyrocketing liability rates, why are they skyrocketing, because of this unlimited down the chain liability. Is the bill perfectly drafted to fix that problem? I don't actually think that we know that at this time, and that's part of the purpose of having this hearing to make sure we are fixing the problem that

Local business owners have correctly identified.

Yeah, I know it's a problem. Yeah,

Yep.

just I'll listen to the testimony and we can go from there

unless

you want to add.

I don't think legal is on the line for this hearing, but we can always ask them to come back and explain why they think this is the best solution.

Yeah.

But it's a really good question. So first up in invited testimony is Kyle Ivanoff. And by the way, I should have mentioned Representative Coulombe was here at 3:19, Representative Sadler here at 4:23, Representative Nelson was here at

4:37. First up in invited testimony is Kyle Ivanoff with the Timeout Lounge and member of Alaska Hospitality Retailers. Thank you, Kyle Ivanoff, for being here.

Reed thirty seven.

Hi folks,

Peterson.

uh thank you for having me as well. Um so this is a big deal for our industry. Um as of twenty twenty four, Alaska has the worst rating in the U_S_ for liquor liability insurance.

It's rated an 8 by the ISO which is the insurance service office and they're calling it a crisis zone for coverage so no carriers want to bring coverage to the state of Alaska for liquor liability insurance.

It's basically a monopoly prices are inflated it used to be you know fifteen twenty thousand dollars annually now it's most people are looking at sixty thousand or more annually.

And it's just, it doesn't seem feasible for small businesses to even carry that.

So, you know, most just carry the general liability insurance.

So there's a couple states that have changed verbiage in their laws to, I guess, make it easier to cover for insurance. You got Alabama,

Texas,

South Carolina, and Vermont.

And out of those,

I kind of looked into a couple of them.

But you've got Vermont changed their language back in 2023.

They call it the knowingly standard and it required proof that the establishment knew without a doubt that the person was intoxicated.

And then South Carolina in 2026, they're having the same problems we are. They're very hard to insure in South Carolina and they're changing their laws to show a minimum of 50-50 liability on the patron and the establishment.

So as far as I'm aware,

it's just the verbiage.

that we're trying to change to help us bring more carriers up here because if we do that we have more options and better rates to be able to afford to carry this insurance.

Mr. Ivanoff, Representative Sadler has a question.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Ivanoff, through the chair. There was a - you said the knowingly standard. How do you - short of obtaining a blood sample or a breathalyzer test, how does a server know whether or not somebody is intoxicated or they should be eligible for service or not?

Well, so

I guess we're trained, we're TAP certified,

and we see individuals all the time. You're never going to know completely.

I'll take you back to a couple months ago.

We had a customer in our bar who walked out the side door, said he was leaving on foot because we cut him off, and I watched him go to his truck, so I stopped him and asked him if we can call him a cab.

We called him a cab,

waited for a good 20,

30 minutes for a cab outside with him.

And then one of the bartenders called the other person in that was waiting outside with him,

and he ran in and ran back out,

and the guy was getting into his truck again and took off driving.

So we did call APD and notified APD, and in that instance, we're still held liable, which is so odd to me. That's why it's confusing.

And Kevin Richard.

Oh, sorry, go ahead, Mr Ivanoff, I didn't mean cut you off.

No, I we can't physically take their keys and we can't, you know, actively grab them or hold them or, you know, so all we can do is try to cover ourselves and it feels like no matter what we do to do our job properly,

we're still liable.

And Kevin Richard is online with AMCO. Mr. Richard, did you want to address this knowingly standard versus alternate permutations that maybe might work in the real world?

The chair for the record, this is Kevin Richard with the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office.

I can't speak to anything specifically in the bill as far as the suggested language that will definitively lower the insurance rates or increase the availability of coverage.

leverage,

but to represent this point,

to reduce the strict liability on an alcohol licensee would take things in the right direction.

Okay.

Okay, follow up, Representative.

And maybe perhaps Ms.

Rivanoff might be able to tell us,

have you any assurance that this legislation if passed would move the needle on the ISO risk rating of Alaska?

Um,

As far as I know, it's got to be a certain verbiage.

We have somebody that works in insurance that was telling us that

it's really tricky because even if you copied and pasted kind of what Texas and some of the other states did,

uh,

they're telling us it might not be the proper verbiage. So I'm not positive, but we're trying to do everything we can to change it.

Very good. And I guess I'll ask the sponsor of the chairman too,

have you assurance that this language would achieve the desired end of test fires as said is the goal of the bill?

To represent Sadler,

Representative Sadler, I introduced this in consultation with the industry to maximize the likelihood that we would lower rates.

I don't

feel like I know 100%. I think all we can do is the best we can and

Is there

continue to bird dog it.

Is there any objective way? Can we check with ISO, someone to

That's a great idea. Let's

that's

Evans

a great idea.

Miss Evan Anderson, let's check with ISO and see what would be the path to provide greatest certainty

Yeah, going the

for

lower

rates.

Yeah.

Yeah. Go ahead, Representative Kahlon.

Uh this might be for the bills sponsor or Mr. Ivanhoff, so

So

When did this civil liability language enter our statute? How long has this been going on?

Kyle Ivanoff, I see Paul Thomas here. I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that question. I think it's a long time.

As long as I've known, I've been in the industry,

hasn't been that long, 16 years, but it's been well before that,

as far as I know.

So are you going to do a follow-up?

Sure.

So, if it's been like this for so long, why is it now that all the insurance companies have left and we only have one and w w is this like a recent problem, or it's just been growing over time, or

My impression from industry is that it's a problem that's been growing over time and is now reached a crisis point. Mr Ivanov, do you think that's an accurate characterisation?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Um and let's go to the invited testimony of Mike Dennis who's a board member of Char. Um Mr Dennis, please proceed with your testimony.

This is Mike Dennis.

I own and operate Conrad House and Insurance.

We're a commercial insurance brokerage here in Alaska and I've been doing this for 35 years.

The idea here that it's the reason that it's happened is what the insurance companies call social inflation.

When an accident happens,

there is a greater payment to the injured party than there has been in the past.

For the last 35 years,

we've had five to six carriers that would write insurance in Alaska.

And I think it was in 2022 or 23 after COVID that we had three leave in a matter of just a few months and then two more leave a couple months later.

And it's a little bit of a misnomer that there's only one carrier that will do it. There's other carriers that will write the liability insurance,

but they write it at such a level that it's not.

Not.

It's for the same price for $300,000 liability limit versus a million,

what you used to be able to get for a million.

And the one carrier that will do it for a million,

the price is tripled and quadrupled, like I heard testified.

And I'd like to kind of piggyback on a lot of the things that Kyle said.

We have the worst rating in the 52 states for insurance companies.

And there are 10 carriers that write liquor liability insurance.

The 10 top carriers in the states,

none of them write Alaska.

And when people who solicit other markets to come here,

they don't even get past the idea that in Alaska we have few claims,

there's not a lot of roads in a lot of the communities,

they look at the rating and it is an 8 out of 10.

10 being the worst and we have to get it below five or below in order for other carriers to even consider so they'll look at the rating and say nope shut the book and won't even talk about claims history premiums anything and so it's it we really are in a crisis because we are one bad claim away from probably having any insurance at all and the the pricing has gotten to the point where

you know business owners are having to decide do I pay my mortgage to feed my family or do I buy liquor liability insurance and and I think that you know all of us would probably feed our families versus buying the coverage and I don't know a bar owner that doesn't want to have the coverage and we're not trying to reduce the idea that somebody that does something wrong will be responsible and we want to have the coverage there if we don't do something

Something.

There may not be coverage available.

And so, you know, it's really important that we get a bill passed that the ISO approves and lowers our rating.

And they're like Kyle said,

there's probably been seven states that have done it in the last five years and changed their laws so that they could have more markets.

I think it was Alabama that I read when they changed their laws and got it below five within five months,

they had 40 carriers that came in and decided to write it.

And if bars aren't carrying the coverage, it's going to trickle down like Representative Fields was talking about in the.

the restaurants and hotels are going to end up you know bearing the burden of it

and and the next thing would be in line and I'm not exaggerating it would be very difficult to buy coverage for restaurants and bars for liquor liability the you know it's just we're in a point right now that we need to do something in order to try to get that ISO rating lowered

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr. Dennis.

Representative Sadler has a question.

Thank you, Mr.

Dennis.

The information we have has you listed as a board member of char,

but in your title kind of went by quickly, you're associated with the industry insurance industry somehow.

Yeah, yeah, I don't own an establishment. I insure hundreds of bars and restaurants throughout the state and so and have been for the last 30 years.

I'm an associate member of CHAR

as a vendor if you will because I've been involved you know in helping the industry for years and years.

And your company name or your organization's name, please?

Conrad Houston?

Insurance CHI of Alaska Inc is the corporate name Houston

I'm sorry?

Houston. It's spelled Houston.

H O U S. Okay, and then, Mr. Houston, follow up with me.

You said that other carriers other than the one we have in Alaska will write for liability insurance,

but what you used to have to pay for a million will now only get you $300,000. Is that what you said,

Yeah,

please?

there are a couple of carriers that will give a quote with the limited liability of 300,000.

Okay, so it's both an availability and a price factor.

Right.

Right.

Okay, fair enough.

And follow up again?

And excuse me, I just wanted to mention, too,

Excuse me. I just wanted to mention too, that they're also very restrictive about anything that they don't

perceive to be in their favor they won't write the insurance.

Fair enough.

Fair enough. Gotta love that market.

And then you mentioned that we need to get the ISO score down to 5,

and I guess I'll ask the same question I asked the sponsor.

Do you think that the language in this bill would be effective enough to lower the risk from 8 to 5? Thereby achieve the goal of the bill?

That, you know, you can never be sure of. I hope that that would be the case, but

I haven't had any experience with the ISO as far as reducing ratings,

so I couldn't tell you that for a fact.

Okay.

Yeah, I guess one more question.

I don't know if the sponsors work with you and your position with the insurance industry,

but you mentioned that one state did get down to five and had 40 carriers.

I think that was a southern state.

Four.

Or four.

I'm sorry, four carriers.

Okay, very good.

And what state was that? And maybe we could just make sure we

Alabama is what I remember.

Maybe we should emulate that language to make sure that, you know, maybe you have, if we could look at the Alabama language too.

Yes, let's do that. And brief it is.

Back on the record. Are there further questions for Mike Dennis, Kyle Ivanoff, Kevin Richard, myself, Nancy Mead is here. Any other questions? Representative Paul.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr. Co-chair. Um my question I believe is for you or Ms. Anderson. Um I'm curious about the last part of the bill here where it removes a sentence from existing statute which provides a civil penalty for persons paid to transport alcohol in who knowingly provide

called to a person who's drunk. And I'm wondering if you or s I don't know if you're the best person to maybe answer about like why that statute is repealed in this bill.

Go ahead for the record.

For the record, I understand uh staffs are up fields. I I'd like to take a deeper look and maybe just get back to you, if that's alright.

EVAN ANDERSON STAFF to UP Fields I,

I'd like to take a deeper look and maybe just get back to you, if that's all right. Sure.

Sure. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will check with Ledge Legal, thank you.

Okay.

We will check with legal, thank you.

Follow up or no?

Yeah, I I have another question. This is more of a a a personal issue that I have with the bill, because it changes the quantum of proof as I understand it. It basically makes it e trying to remember. It it makes it harder

for people to prove in court that somebody knowingly provided alcohol to someone who is drunk.

And so when I think about this from the victim's pers perspective, I'm I'm really reticent to support a bill like this if I'm understanding how the bill is written right now. And the reason part of the reason why I feel this way is because in September I was at a work function in Talkeetna

And I left the function to drive home. Uh it was middle of the day and I ended up having to report a ready driver. And I followed this ready driver for about twenty five minutes scared out of my mind because somebody was driving very clearly intoxicated by some sort of substance.

And so when I think about the potential of what could have happened that day, and that was after watching at least four times, if not five or more of this driver swerving into oncoming traffic and thinking that I'm going to watch a head-on collision and see probably the worst and most horrific scene that in my life. I just, I have a lot of questions and concerns about this bill. And so maybe I'm just wondering, am I understanding this, what this bill?

build does from that perspective?

Well, um maybe one way to question is to think about the options on the spectrum from strict liability to no liability. Um and Ms. Meade, do you wanna are you able to help address what some of these options are in terms of how we crafted.

If we want to provide

You know, a little more protection for a restaurant that serves someone one drink and then the person went on to uh another bar what how do we um

how do we provide some accountability without ensnaring everyone who ever served a drink to someone even if the first person in no way could have known what the person was gonna drink after that.

For the record, Nancy made general counsel for the Alaska Court system, and though I haven't thought about that question deeply just during the conversation, uh if if the problem is that the liability can go up the chain to the first person who served, the person, the statute could be changed to say that you are only civilly liable uh if you serve to a person who at the time the alcoholic beverage was served,

served was a drunken person. So in your in your example, the person was fine at the beginning of the night. It is the the person who served them later on. So that would be a a fairly easy amendment to the existing statute. And further you could put something in there that um the person providing the drinks um knew or should have known if you want to knowingly in there that the person was a drunken person.

in person, so that then you get into evidence just like you do in other cases where, well, they were slurring their words or they were stumbling, and that would that would raise the bar.

I don't know if it's enough for insurance companies. I don't know what their bars are, um but it would um maybe be a bit more protective to the providers that they aren't strictly liable. Strictly liable is you are going to be liable, kind of whether you knew or not or anything.

The normal civil um standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. You just have to prove that it's fifty one percent that this is what you should have known. Clear and convincing is the highest civil standard of proof. Um and criminal of course we have a beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't enter into civil liability.

Uh clear and convincing, there's no percentages attached, but people think, oh I don't know if it's it eighty five, seventy five percent certainty.

So it is a a high standard of proof. I don't know if that's helped at all.

It does, and I think that phrase new or should have known is worthwhile representative of all because should have known you have the ability to introduce multiple pieces of evidence. The person had certain behavioral attributes that any reasonable person should have known indicated they were drunk. Um Kevin Richard, do you have anything to add to what Ms. Mead said in terms of options if we think about something a little more functional than strict liability?

I don't have anything, sorry,

through the chair, this is Director Richard with the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office for the record. I don't have anything to add at this time.

Okay, thank you. And Representative Hall, we'll go back to ledge legal with some of these concepts from Ms. Mead. Thank you for outlining some of the options, and I appreciate it.

Are there further questions from committee members? Representative Sadler, thank you.

Thank you. I don't know if we're going to get a chance to have this bill in front of us. I've heard some reference to a bill that would lower the blood

alcohol content to be considered intoxicated from 0.08%

to 0.04%. And would any of the gentlemen involved in the hospitality or the insurance industry be able to tell me what effect passage of such a bill might have on the risk rating for the state of Alaska?

Well, I have concerns about that concept, Representative Sadler, but gosh. Kevin Richard, is a 0.04 BAC detectable to an observer?

Through the chair, this is Director Richard with the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office for the record.

There's training available to enforcement officers to help them identify signs of intoxication or inebriation, but without blood analysis or breath analysis,

I don't know that you would be able to visually determine 0.04 or any specific BAC marker.

Go

ahead,

Representative.

Thank you. Not exactly my question, although it's good information. My question is more technical, like insurance based. If there are many factors that ISO considers, one of them may be what the state lists as the level of intoxication. So, and I know this is not the bill before us now, but we have experts in front of us now.

Would lowering it from 0.08 to 0.04 have any appreciable effect either way on the ISO risk rating for the state of Alaska?

Are any of our invited testifiers going to answer that? I do not.

This is Mike Dennis.

I'm not aware of that being a factor.

I haven't seen that in any of the stuff that I've read.

And again,

what I would emphasize is that we're not trying to take the liability away,

but if you can't buy it,

there will be none.

And that's, you know, a big point, I think.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Representative

And

thank you. And my point is, if we're not quite sure if this bill in front of us right now, HB 306, will have the desired effect, I'm just trying to find out if other legislation might move the needle sufficiently to attract more liability insurance providers to Alaska. So that's why we'll probe that when that bill comes in front of us, won't we? Thank you.

Okay.

Further questions.

All right, seeing none, that concludes our business. The House Labor and Commerce Committee will next meet on Wednesday, March 25th at 3:15 and at 3:59 we're adjourned.