Opinion ID: 2518552
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alaska Statute 21.36.460's legislative history supports the division's interpretation.

Text: When we interpret Alaska statutes we apply a sliding scale of interpretation, where the plainer the language, the more convincing contrary legislative history must be. [18] The division interpreted the plain language of AS 21.36.460(d)(1) as prohibiting Progressive's proposed use of consumers' frozen credit scores at renewal. Progressive argues that AS 21.36.460's legislative history does not support this interpretation. We disagree. Annette Skibinski, staff to Senator Cowdery (who, with Senator Elton, co-authored Senate Bill 13, which enacted AS 21.36.460(d)(1)) [19] testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 13 precludes insurers from [using] credit when it's time to renew a policy in rating or underwriting. [20] Ms. Skibinski further testified that at every renewal period, the consumer has to ask for the[ir] credit to be used. Otherwise it won't be used at all at renewal. [21] Moreover, Ms. Skibinski testified that Senate Bill 13 requires insurers at renewal to look at factors such as the consumer's driving record, payment history, and how many claims the consumer has filed  but not the consumer's credit score. [22] Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the plain language of AS 21.36.460(d)(1) is ambiguous, AS 21.36.460's legislative history convincingly supports the division's position that a consumer's credit score must be stripped out at renewal unless the consumer consents to its continued usage. [23]