Covid Liability Bill Wins Bipartisan Support, Heads To House

Covid Liability Bill Wins Bipartisan Support, Heads To House

On Wednesday, the Arizona Senate passed SB 1377 in a bipartisan vote, a bill that offers protection from litigation for businesses and others who act in “good faith” to implement reasonable policies to protect their customers, clients, and patients.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Vince Leach, is considered “a critical piece of legislation” by large and small business organizations, who hope to open fully now that important COVID-19 metrics have dropped dramatically in the state.

Specifically, SB 1377 establishes “civil liability standards for specified acts or omissions during a state of emergency for a public health pandemic.” The standards would be established retroactively to March 11, 2020. March 11, 2020 is the date Gov. Doug Ducey declared a state of emergency due to COVID-19.

“Small business owners were crushed by the pandemic lockdown, and now face the prospect of enduring years of frivolous litigation by trial lawyers looking to cash in by blaming the spread of Covid on employers,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “SB 1377 would provide much needed legal protection to small business owners so that they are not sued for simply trying to stay open during the current crisis.”

The sponsor introduced the bill to ensure a presumption that any person or “provider” acted in good faith to protect a customer, student, tenant, volunteer, patient, guest or neighbor, or the public from injury or loss through reasonable attempts to comply with rely on published guidance issued by a federal or state agency in connection to a public health pandemic.

Senate Bill 1377 Provisions:

Public Health Pandemic Civil Liability

1. Precludes from liability for damages, during a public health pandemic state of emergency declared by the Governor, a person or provider who acts in good faith to protect a customer, student, tenant, volunteer, patient, guest or neighbor, or the public (litigant), from injury from the public health pandemic for injury, death or loss to person or property that is based on a claim that the person or provider failed to protect the litigant from the effects of the public health pandemic, unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person or provider failed to act or acted and the failure to act or action was due to that person’s or provider’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.

2. Establishes a presumption that a person or provider acted in good faith if the person or provider adopted and implemented reasonable policies related to the public health pandemic.

3. Applies the standard for liability to all claims that are filed before or after the general effective date for an act or omission by a person or provider that occurred after March 11, 2020, and that relates to a public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency declared by the Governor.

4. Exempts claims for workers compensation from the outlined liability standard.

5. Defines provider as:

a) a person who furnishes consumer or business goods or services or entertainment;
b) an educational institution or district;
c) a school district or charter school;
d) a property owner, property manager or property lessor or lessee;
e) a nonprofit organization;
f) a religious institution;
g) the state or a state agency or instrumentality;
h) a local government or political subdivision, including a department, agency or commission of a local government or political subdivision;
i) a service provider;
j) a health professional; or
k) a health care institution.

Health Professionals and Health Care Institutions

6. Precludes from liability for damages, during a public health pandemic state of emergency declared by the Governor, a health professional (professional) or health care institution (institution) that acts in good faith in any civil action for an injury or death that is alleged to be directly or indirectly the professional’s or institution’s action or omission while providing health care services in support of the state’s response to the state of emergency, unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the professional or institution failed to act or acted and the failure to act or action was due to that professional’s or institution’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.

7. Applies the outlined limited liability to any action or omission that occurs:

a) during a person’s screening, assessment, diagnosis or treatment and that is related to the public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency; or

b) in the course of providing a person with health care services and that is unrelated to the public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency if the professional’s or institution’s action or omission was in good faith support of the state’s response to the state of emergency, including:

i. delaying or canceling a procedure that the professional determined in good faith was a nonurgent or elective dental, medical or surgical procedure;

ii. providing nursing care or procedures;

iii. altering a person’s diagnosis or treatment in response to an order, directive or guideline that is issued by the federal government, the state or a local government; or

iv. an act or omission undertaken by a professional or institution because of a lack of staffing, facilities, equipment, supplies or other resources that are attributable to the state of emergency and that render the professional or institution unable to provide the level or manner of care to a person that otherwise would have been required in the absence of the state of emergency.

8. Establishes a presumption that a professional or institution acted in good faith if the professional or institution relied on and reasonably attempted to comply with applicable published guidance relating to the public health pandemic that was issued by a federal or state agency.

9. Allows a party to introduce any other evidence that proves the professional or institution acted in good faith.

10. Applies the standard for liability to all claims that are filed before or after the general effective date for an act or omission by a person or provider that occurred after March 11, 2020, and that relates to a public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency declared by the Governor.

11. Exempts claims for workers compensation from the outlined liability standard.

Under the legislation, a provider is defined as a person who furnishes consumer or business goods or services or entertainment, as well as an educational institution or district, school district or charter school, property owner, property manager or property lessor or lessee, a nonprofit organization, a religious institution, a state or a state agency or instrumentality, a local government or political subdivision (including a department, agency or commission), a service provider, a health professional, or a health care institution.

Anyone wishing to claim an “injury, death or loss to person or property” based on a failure to protect the litigant from the effects of the public health pandemic must be able to show the person or provider acted with “willful misconduct or gross negligence.” The liability protection also includes inactions which are alleged to have caused harm.

Arizona House Committee Passes Term Limits On Congress Resolution

Arizona House Committee Passes Term Limits On Congress Resolution

the Arizona House Government and Elections Committee passed HCR 2015 for an amendment proposal convention that would help put term limits on Congress. The resolution is sponsored by Rep. Ben Toma representing District 22, part of the Phoenix metropolitan area.

The resolution passed the house committee with a vote of 7-6. Thirty-five Arizona state lawmakers in the 2021 legislature have taken the term limits pledge (see listing below) promising to support an Article V convention for term limits on Congress.

The state senate counterpart resolution, SCR 1025, is sponsored by Sen. Kelly Townsend. Both resolutions are being guided through the legislature by U.S. Term Limits (USTL), a national, nonprofit advocating for term limits at all levels of government.

“This has been a great week for Arizona passing the USTL resolutions in committees in both chambers,” says USTL’s Arizona State Director, Jim Olivi. On Monday, Sen. Townsend’s bill passed its hearing in the Senate Government committee. “When 85% of people approve of anything, you know it’s a bipartisan proposal,” said Olivi.

According to a 2020 poll by McLaughlin & Associates, congressional term limits is the most popular and bipartisan issue in Arizona, with 85 percent support statewide. That includes backing from 87 percent of Republicans, 85 percent of independents and 83 percent of Democratic voters.

Both resolutions are expected to be voted on in their respective chambers as early as next week.

Arizona Small Businesses Tax Relief Passes Out Of House Ways And Means Committee

Arizona Small Businesses Tax Relief Passes Out Of House Ways And Means Committee

PHOENIX – On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved legislation that revises Arizona tax structure for taxpayers and protects small business from over taxation by the federal government, without impacting the state general fund. The vote on HB 2838, sponsored by Rep. Joseph Chaplik, was divided along party lines.

In November 2020, the Internal Revenue Service issued guidance (Notice 2020-75) that pass-through entity businesses may claim deductions above the $10,000 State and Local Tax (SALT) cap. In response, at least seven states have imposed a new tax structure at the pass-through entity level permitting this deduction as intended by the federal government. Under HB 2838, Arizona would join those other states, providing small businesses significant potential tax savings.

“Small businesses are the backbone of the Arizona economy, and I will do everything in my power to protect them,” said Chaplik. “As Arizona businesses recover from an unprecedented economic downturn, I remain committed to providing them every opportunity to thrive in this challenging environment. HB 2838 frees up critical capital for business owners and doesn’t cost the state a dime in tax revenue.

“Republicans voted to help all businesses with tax relief without negatively impacting our state revenues. Democrats voted ‘no’ and are not willing to help their businesses in their districts,” claimed Chaplik.

All 31 members of the House Republican Caucus have signed their support for HB 2838. It will next be considered by the whole House.

ESA Bill For Children From Lower-Income Families Passes Arizona Senate

ESA Bill For Children From Lower-Income Families Passes Arizona Senate

After a heated floor discussion on Monday, the Arizona State Senate passed Senate Bill 1452, a bill which will expand educational opportunities for children from low-income homes. The bill passed long party lines.

The bill, if passed in the Arizona State House, is expected to bring educational choice options to an estimated 700,000 low income students who are currently part of the Federal free and reduced lunch program and/or are attending Title I schools.

Earlier this month, prominent leaders from the Phoenix valley’s Black community gathered at the Arizona Capitol in support of the bill and school choice for minority children.

“School Choice is an extension of the civil rights movement because it gives parents, especially low-income and minority parents, the rights and resources to choose any school their child needs. School Choice equals freedom.” – Rev. H.K. Matthews

Democrats argued that the bill would take money away from the currently mostly closed public schools. Across the state, public schools have been forced to deny educational opportunities to students due to resistance from teachers, who are refusing to return to their classrooms.

The American Federation for Children cites data showing that low-income students are anticipated to be up to 12 months behind by the end of this current school year. SB1452 will give low-income parents resources and funds to find an in-person private school, join micro-schools, hire tutors and teachers, purchase homeschooling curriculum, and pay transportation costs.

“This extension to Arizona’s ESA program is so badly needed right now due to the COVID school closures. Thank you to Senator Paul Boyer for sponsoring this crucial legislation and thank you to the Republican caucus in the Senate for passing this bill in the best interest of low-income parents and children all over the state,” said Steve Smith, Arizona State Director for the American Federation for Children, in a press release. “But most of all, thank you to civil rights icon, Rev. H.K. Matthews for his powerful words quoted today during the senate debate, as well as minority leaders across the state. Your willingness to advocate for equality and justice on behalf of minority and low-income families is nothing short of inspiring. We look forward to working with our Arizona Representatives in the House to make every education option available to the children who need the most help right now.”

Bill Would Require New Homes To Have Designated Outlet To Charge Electric Vehicles

Bill Would Require New Homes To Have Designated Outlet To Charge Electric Vehicles

Monday afternoon the Arizona Senate Committee on Government will consider a bill sponsored by Sen. Victoria Steele (D-LD9) that would prohibit a municipality or county from issuing a single-family residential building permit unless there is a special dedicated outlet for charging an electric vehicle in a garage or within 10 feet of the home’s parking area.

Under SB1102, a residential building permit could not be issued for new construction or an addition if the structure does not have a 208/240 volt, 50-ampere, NEMA 14-50 branch circuit. The required electrical work could cost up to $2,000 depending on where the home is located.

The exceptions in Steele’s bill include building permits issued for a manufactured home, a residential structure of less than 1,000 square feet, and a residential structure whose main electric service would exceed 200 ampere with the addition of a 50-ampere circuit. The bill is opposed by the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona.

SB1102 also appropriates $1,000,000 from the state’s FY22 general fund to the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) to help support electric vehicle charging options. One-half of the funds would go to a Ready Home Pilot Program to establish guidelines and standards for the installation of a high voltage electric vehicle charging outlet.

The program would also reimburse the owner of a single-family or multifamily residential structure for the cost -up to $1,000- of installing the outlet, until the appropriated funds are exhausted.

The other $500,000 appropriated by Steele’s bill would be used by ADOA to conduct a two-year “Charging Station Pilot Program” under which state agencies could apply for funds to install electric vehicle charging stations at agency locations.
The program would also allow private entities to install and operate a retail fee-based electric vehicle charging station at various state properties, including the Legislature and property under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regents.

However, Sen. Jamescita Peshlakai (D-LD7) put forth a proposed amendment on Feb. 12 which would make the charging outlet an option, not a requirement, to obtain a building permit. The amendment also drops the provision in Steele’s bill about allowing private operation of a retail fee-based electric vehicle charging station on state-controlled property.

If SB1102 -as introduced or amended- makes it out of the Government Committee it must then get past the Appropriations and Rules Committees, neither of which are scheduled to consider the bill this week.