Opinion ID: 2629666
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The nexus between the legislative objectives and the damages caps is adequate.

Text: Finally, we must evaluate the nexus or fit between the legislature's goals and the means employed to achieve those goals. Because we have already established that the plaintiffs' interests are economic and are therefore at the low end of the sliding scale, the fit required here is minimal and there must only be a substantial relationship between the legislative objectives and the damages caps. [48] The superior court found that the nexus was adequate, noting that the causal connection between a limitation on the size of awards for noneconomic damages and lower insurance premiums hardly requires elaboration. The plaintiffs contend that there is no substantial relationship, and they make essentially two arguments to support this conclusion. First, they claim that there is no evidence of any connection between the damages caps and the legislative goals underlying chapter 26, SLA 1997. The plaintiffs claim that the record is devoid of any evidence that the damages caps would have a positive effect on insurance rates and frivolous litigation. Second, the plaintiffs claim that the uniformity of the damages caps across the state has no substantial relationship to the legislature's goals. The plaintiffs claim that the caps discriminate against rural Alaskans because those Alaskans should receive adjusted damages in light of their higher cost of living. The plaintiffs argue that the failure to adjust for cost of living has no substantial relationship to the legislature's objectives. The record indicates that the legislature considered at least some evidence tending to show that damages caps, as well as the other provisions of chapter 26, SLA 1997, could have a positive effect on the legislature's objectives. For example, some industry representatives testified that chapter 26, SLA 1997 would improv[e] the business climate by lowering business costs. [49] Several insurance company representatives claimed that liability insurance rates would go down if a damages cap were to be enacted; one representative included statistics that tended to show that in California, where similar tort reforms have been enacted, insurance premiums have in fact gone down. [50] Small business owners and representatives of health care organizations testified, respectively, that chapter 26, SLA 1997 would have a positive impact on liability insurance rates [51] and malpractice insurance rates. [52] Finally, evidence was submitted supporting the conclusion that the availability of high punitive damages awards tended to lengthen litigation in civil suits generally. [53] The legislature was also presented with contrasting testimonynotably, from the Governor's Advisory Task Force on Civil Justice Reform. The Task Force Report concluded that damages caps would not have a clear effect on frivolous litigation or insurance rates. The legislature apparently weighed the competing evidence and decided that the evidence in favor of creating the damages caps justified enacting the caps. The plaintiffs allege that much of the evidence presented to the legislature was false or misleading and they invite us to examine contrasting evidence and impeachment evidence, arguing that the legislature should not be allowed to do whatever it wishes regardless of the factual basis for legislative action. However, that weighing of the evidence is a task that is properly left to the legislature. The substantial relationship requirement was met in this case. We must also briefly address the plaintiffs' second argumentthat the uniformity of the caps across the state is unconstitutional, because that uniformity is not fairly and substantially related to the legislative goals of tort reform. The plaintiffs did not provide any authority to support their argument. However, at least one other court has refused to find an equal protection violation merely because a law has a different economic impact on urban and rural residents of a state. [54] There is also no violation of equal protection merely because the damages caps do not provide for cost of living adjustments.