Opinion ID: 2331492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Expression of Original Intent in 2005

Text: Determining whether the legislature intended to change or clarify an existing law while amending it is a difficult undertaking without an explicit statement of intent. Furthermore, the district court did not address KIGA's clarification argument. It relied solely on Hetzel to find that the original enactment only applied to duplicate recovery from double coverage and that KIGA would have owed Brennan benefits before the 2005 amendment. Ordinarily, courts presume the legislature intends to make a substantive change when it revises an existing law, but this presumption's strength, weakness, or validity changes according to the circumstances. When an original statute is ambiguous, the legislative purpose may be to clarify the statute's ambiguities, not to change the law. Trees Oil Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 279 Kan. 209, 229, 105 P.3d 1269 (2005) (citing State ex rel. Morrison v. Oshman Sporting Goods Co. Kansas, 275 Kan. 763, 773, 69 P.3d 1087 [2003]). A statutory amendment may provide insight into the original enactment's legislative intent if that enactment was ambiguous. Amendments that construe or clarify a prior statute `must be accepted as the legislative declaration of the meaning of the original act.' Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz, 265 Kan. 217, 222, 960 P.2d 205 (1998) (quoting 82 C.J.S., Statutes § 384[a], pp. 899-900.) Furthermore, `an amendment making a statute directly applicable to a particular case is not a conclusive admission by the legislature that the statute did not originally cover [it].' 265 Kan. at 222, 960 P.2d 205 (quoting 82 C.J.S., Statutes § 384[b][2], pp. 906-07). But if the amendment contains a radical change to a statute's phraseology, it is generally perceived as a legislative declaration that the original law did not `embrace the amended provision.' 265 Kan. at 222, 960 P.2d 205 (quoting 82 C.J.S., Statutes § 384[b][2], pp. 906-07). The legislative history reflects that KIGA proposed the amendment at issue during the 2005 legislative session, and a KIGA representative advocated for its adoption before the Senate and House insurance committees. Minutes of the House Insurance Committee, February 17, 2005; Minutes of the Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee, March 16, 2005. In written remarks distributed to both committees, KIGA self-described the proposed revisions as reinforcing the Guaranty Act's original intent to make KIGA the payor of last resort and providing clarification that the offset requirements apply to all related claims under other insurance, stating: As in most states, current law in Kansas specifies that a claim that may be covered under several policies must first exhaust coverage under policies other than the insolvent insurer and that any covered claim payable by [KIGA] is reduced by any recovery from such other insurance. These provisions help assure that [KIGA] is the payor of last resort and also prevents the potential for a double recovery by the claimant. Our proposed amendments are intended to reinforce these concepts and clarify that the exhaustion and offset requirements apply to all claims under any kind of insurance, regardless of whether first party or third party claims, and including claims under accident and sickness insurance, health insurance and workers' compensation coverage similar to provisions adopted in some of the other states.  (Emphasis added.) Minutes of the House Insurance Committee, February 17, 2005, attachment 6, p. 9. But this statement advocating adoption of the amendment is decidedly self-serving since KIGA was aware of the claims pending against it at the time, including Brennan's claim. And we note the amendment's text does not contain any declaration that the legislature intended to clarify the law. See In re Care Treatment of Hunt, 32 Kan. App.2d 344, 361, 82 P.3d 861, rev. denied 278 Kan. 845 (2004) (courts may rely on a legislative body's declaration but must do so cautiously if the declaration is not included in the amendment's text). Even so, KIGA's contention that the amendment is evidence of the original provision's meaning remains plausible given the law's ambiguous language containing a very broad exhaustion requirement. The problem with accepting this contention is that it contradicts the Guaranty Act's stated purpose, which includes protecting claimants and policyholders from the burdens caused by an insurer's insolvency. It also flies in the face of the legislative directive that the Guaranty Act be liberally construed to achieve its stated purposes. K.S.A. 40-2901. Accordingly, we hold the 2005 amendment changed the original statute to broaden the offset provisions and was not intended by the legislature to simply clarify already existing offsets. We turn next to addressing whether Brennan's right to the Guaranty Act's protections vested prior to the amendment's effective date.