The House, Thursday, May 9, 2024

Rep. Mark McConkeyThank you, Mister Speaker. Members of the House, it is my honor today to deliver the following remarks for my committee, Public Works and Highways. Bradley Haas was working as a security officer at New Hampshire Hospital in Concord when a gunman opened fire in the front lobby. Despite efforts to save him, Haas died of his injuries. Haas was working for the Department of Safety at the time of the shooting. Before that, he spent 28 years with the Franklin, New Hampshire police department, starting as a patrol officer and eventually being named chief. He retired from the department in 2008 and he was also a U.S. veteran. I would like to share a quote from New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella, who said, "Chief Haas was already a hero when he walked into work yesterday, given his service to our country, to our state and to his community. He will now be remembered as a man who died protecting patients, staff and visitors to the New Hampshire Hospital." Brad grew up in Franklin and attended Franklin High School. He went on to serve his country as a military police officer in the U.S. Army before becoming a police officer in his hometown of Franklin. Brad served his community for 26 years, and as a respected officer and leader, he became the chief of police for the City of Franklin. After retirement, Brad worked for the U.S. Postal Service, and then as a security officer for the State of New Hampshire at the New Hampshire Hospital. While I was never fortunate enough to meet Brad, people that I have talked to have said he was a kind, loving person who was committed to his family, friends, his community, his state and his nation. That is all illustrated in his career and service. Importantly, Brad enjoyed time with his son, and they had much in common, as fathers and sons do. Brad was always there to help people. That is who he was. We can never understand the senseless act. Nothing we can say or do will bring Chief Haas back to his family, but here today we can ensure that all that drive through Franklin on Route 127 will be reminded of Brad's commitment to his town and family each time they travel this section of road to be now named the Bradley Haas Memorial Highway. May God bless Chief Bradley Haas, his family, friends and ask that he protect all those that serve in law enforcement, firefighters and first responders here in our state. Finally, we extend our deepest sympathies to your family. Please join me and unanimously vote this legislation Ought to Pass when the Speaker calls for that vote.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us in Ought to Pass on SB 592. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it on a unanimous vote.

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)Mister Speaker, I move to Indefinitely Postpone SB 462.

Speaker PackardThe motion is to Indefinitely Postpone SB 462. The motion is in order. A division has been requested. Members take your seats. The motion before us is to Indefinitely Postpone SB 462. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lynn for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this bill is simply not ready for prime time and the most efficient way to deal with it right now is to Indefinitely Postpone it, would I press the green button to do just that? Thank you, Mister Speaker and I request a division vote.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Marjorie Smith for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the legislators were elected to legislate, to debate bills and then to vote on them, would I vote against Indefinitely Postpone so that we can hear what the factors are in this bill and then make a legislative decision? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is to Indefinitely Postpone SB 462. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 175 voting Yea, 187 voting Nay, the motion fails. Now we are back to the original motion of Ought to Pass on SB 462. The Chair recognizes Rep. Hunt.

Rep. John Hunt (R - Ches 14)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I promise to be brief. I was reading the blurb the other day and it talks about whether this is going to have an impact on insurance premiums or not. As someone who has served on the insurance committee for over 30 years, there is a couple of things I can guarantee you and a couple of things I'll tell you have a high probability of happening. Number one. I guarantee you everyone's insurance will be impacted. The simple reason being that the underwriter who issues your policy, who is setting up your policy cannot ignore these numbers. These numbers are off the chart. I would say if it had gone to a different committee, they would have come back with much more reasonable numbers, but it didn't. I'm very respectful of other committees and what they are worth, but in this case, these numbers are way, way too high. I guarantee you, everyone who has an insurance policy will see an increase. I also guarantee that any business that has a vehicle or heavy equipment is going to see a whopper of an increase. The only other thing and I will not try to guarantee this, but I can promise you this. There will be some insurance companies that will pull out of this state if we pass these numbers. State Farm pulled out of California. We have a very lively insurance market and the last thing we need to do is upset that cart with these outrageous numbers. Please do not pass this bill. Put it in Interim Study and yes, we can make sure that the department does an actuarial study and give us numbers that really make sense. Please vote no.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Kristine Perez.

Rep. Kristine Perez (R - Rock 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Let's talk about the facts, not hypotheticals. In the Senate hearing on February 6, those representing the insurance interest were asked in other states with this type of statute, did insurance rates go up. They did not have the answers to that. The bill passed in the Senate committee, Ought to Pass, then it went on to pass in the Senate 17-7. On April 24, 2024 it comes to Judiciary eleven weeks and one day later. At that hearing, the same question was asked of the insurance companies. We don't have that answer, yet they had eleven weeks and one day to get that answer. In Illinois, in 2007, they had put this into effect. In 2010, the caps were eliminated. According to the American Medical Association, in a nine-year study from 2009 to 2018, malpractice insurance dropped in OBGYN. Malpractice insurance dropped in general surgery and malpractice insurance in internal medicine increased by an average of $139/year. Maine. Their changes from 2019 went from $500,000 to $750,000. Since, that was in 2000, yet since those rates, since that happened, their rates went up 2.79% and the national average for rates was up 2.77%. New Hampshire has the lowest caps on recovery of grief, sorrow and mental suffering and wrongful death in the country. Vermont and Maine have no caps. Maine's was adjusted for inflation in 2003 to $1 million cap. Rhode Island raised its cap to $350,000 in 2003 as well. Our cap has not been adjusted in 25 years. Inflation alone would bring it up to $300,000, but let's bring it up so that we don't have to bring this up again. Yet, New Hampshire insurance companies are making record profits. The top ten casualty companies in the state had an average loss ratio of 56% meaning payout of only .56 cents on every premium dollar that they take in. Insurance companies have doubled their profit since 2022 to 2023, yet a mother who is not working, who does not have a degree, who is killed, might not receive damages for loss of earnings since she has the sole honorable job of being a wife and a mother. Doesn't her family deserve compensation for their loss of her, their grief, their sorrow and wrongful death separate from damages? I work for the people. I do not work for insurance companies. Thank you.

Rep. Richard Tripp (R - Rock 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This is an interesting bill. We spent two and half hours listening to everyone say well we don't know if this is too much to raise the cap or if raising the cap would raise the insurance rates. This bill originally was determined to be sent to Interim Study. I think that if we could not figure out what was going on in two and half hours, then sending to Interim Study would give us a chance to figure out which the proper amount should be for the cap on wrongful death for loss of consortium and possibly get an actuary to study so that we could find out what would actually happen to the insurance rates. So, I ask you to vote red to fail the OTP. Thank you.

Rep. Ben Ming (D - Hills 35)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, the State of New Hampshire places a cap on insurance claims for loss of consortium due to the wrongful death of a spouse, parent or child. These claims arise through a deceased person's estate where its administrator can bring claims that due to the negligence of another, this close family relationship was severed and the spouse, child or parent should be compensated for the loss of that relationship. As a state we value the loss of a spouse at $150,000 and only $50,000 for a parent or child. If those values sound low, it may be due to the fact that they have not been adjusted since they were instated in the late 90s. The change that SB 462 proposes is a more than reasonable limit of $500,000 for the loss of a spouse and a $300,000 limit for the loss of a parent or child. Those numbers represent a compromise within the other legislative body, with the original version of the bill proposing an elimination of those caps. Removing the limit on loss of consortium damages altogether may sound like a big step, but we don't have to look outside of New England for examples of what happens when these completely arbitrary caps are removed. The answer is nothing. Insurance is no less affordable in the absence of these limits. The only other state in New England that even has these limits is Maine and the cap on loss of consortium damages is $1 million. The people in those states continue to have insurance and the insurance companies haven't left. Why is that? These types of claims are not common, and they are not common because they are expensive to litigate. When they do happen, New Hampshire juries don't give excessive verdicts. Which we know, because uncapped damages exist for other claims in New Hampshire and there are no numbers to show that excessive verdicts occur in those circumstances with any frequency. Not only that, judges have the power to reduce excessive monetary verdicts if one were to occur. Although we aren't voting on an unlimited cap on damages for loss of consortium due to the negligence causation of death, we should consider that in New Hampshire. Damages are uncapped for certain types of negligent injury. We are quite literally saying there are some things in life that are worse than death, but it's not the loss of a spouse, parent or child. This is a weighty issue and the types of families that would rely on this RSA and the change that SB 462 would make to it, need this. They've lost their spouse, their parent or their child and our laws have defined a completely inadequate value of a relationship that will never exist again. Please support the current motion and committee recommendation of Ought to Pass. Thank you, Mister Speaker, and I request a division vote.

Speaker PackardRep. Lynn has requested a division. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on SB 462. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Lynn for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R - Rock 17)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that the increase in loss of consortium caps in this bill are far above what the caps would be if a mere inflation or consumer price index were applied to the original caps as enacted in the late 1990s. And if I know that this bill is opposed by the insurance industry, New Hampshire Hospital Association, the New Hampshire Association of Counties and perhaps most significantly, the New Hampshire Insurance Department. And if I know that the basis of these groups opposition is the concern that the increase in damage caps will have on insurance rates which are already under great stress and more importantly on the availability of insurance for certain critical professions such as doctors and other medical professionals. And finally, if I know that much of these concerns could be eliminated if the insurance department is given some time to conduct an actuarial study of this proposal and that we have no indication that 11 weeks would be a sufficient time to conduct such a study or that, back in February, the insurance department was simply able to drop everything to start one right away, then would I oppose the OTP motion so another motion for Interim Study can be made and the proposal can be brought back next year if warranted? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Marjorie Smith for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Marjorie Smith (D - Straf 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that I agree completely with the Chair of the Judiciary Committee when he talks about the fact that for some reason the Department of Insurance has been unable or unwilling to give us the data that could help inform us on what would happen in New Hampshire. But, if I also know that without New Hampshire figures, we would best look at what happens in all the other states that have raised their limits and found that in no other state has there been an increase in rates. If I know that the rates in all other states in New England have no cap except for Maine where the value has gone up and where there has been no increase in rates. And if I also know that because I value a successful capitalist system, I'm pleased to be able to report that insurers in New Hampshire are doing very well, could I now bring myself to recognize that in order to be respectful to the families in New Hampshire who find themselves in this situation, that I would vote in fact to increase the caps, put us in line with all the other states that have done this without facing any situation with the sky falling, and therefore vote Ought to Pass? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass on SB 462. This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 191 voting Yea, 174 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.