Court Opinion

ID: 9513961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:42:43.331908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:06.855455
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 14] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 15] The decisive issue in this case is application of N.D.C.C. § 26.1-41-17. I believe the majority has erred by retroactively applying that provision.
[¶ 16] Section 1-02-10, N.D.C.C., provides, “No part of this code is retroactive unless it is expressly declared to be so.” Absent express direction from the Legislature that a statute applies retroactively, the applicable law is that which was in effect when a cause of action arose, regardless of the law’s substantive or procedural nature. Reiling v. Bhattacharyya, 276 N.W.2d 237, 239 (N.D.1979). Here, the Legislature neither hinted at nor directed retroactive application of N.D.C.C. § 26.1-41-17. Absent that declaration, this Court should not countenance retroactive repeal of the law. Yet that is what the majority effectuates by its ruling.
[¶ 17] The majority concludes our law permits substantive and procedural statutes to be treated differently for purposes of retroactivity. Majority Opinion at ¶ 1. This substantive versus procedural analysis apparently carried the day prior to Reiling. 276 N.W.2d at 239 (“During the past eighty years this court has followed the rule that a substantive statute may not be applied retroactively in the absence of specific legislative intent, but has rendered varied decisions regarding the retroactivity of procedural statutes.”). In Reiling, however, this Court returned to the plain reading of section 1-02-10, N.D.C.C., that we do not distinguish between substantive and procedural statutes. The Court in Reiling also explained that, because retro-activity is not favored under the law, and because the determination of whether a statute is substantive or procedural “must be made by balancing the interests on a case-by-case basis without any clear, workable guidelines,” there is no distinction between substantive and procedural statutes regarding retroactivity. Id. at 240. See also State v. Flatt, 2007 ND 98, ¶ 22, 733 N.W.2d 608 (Sandstrom, J., concurring specially) (“The legislature has told us that if a new enactment is to be retroactive, the legislature itself will expressly declare it to be so. If this rule is to be changed, that too is the function of the legislature. This fundamental principle is as old as the constitution and as enduring as our American democracy.”).
[¶ 18] I believe the majority errs in retreating to the pre-Reiling distinction between procedural and substantive statutes and, apparently, treatment of the former as presumptively retroactive. In response to this dissent, the majority argues at ¶ 9 it is “merely applying the law that existed at the time Manitoba Public filed its suit....” That is precisely the problem. Utilizing the law in effect on filing ignores that people everywhere act based on the law that exists at the time of their acts. Utilizing the law in effect on filing ignores that insurance companies perform underwriting and set premiums based on the law that exists at the time the risk is insured. Allowing a change of law after the act is done, and after a risk is evaluated and undertaken, does a disservice to society at *793large because it removes the certainty the law is supposed to provide.
[¶ 19] In addition, the section of Sutherland’s Statutory Construction relied upon by the majority at ¶ 9 states that a common-law principle of construction should be applied to the repeal of remedial statutes. The North Dakota Legislature, however, has forbidden such common-law treatment. “In this state there is no common law in any case in which the law is declared by the code.” N.D.C.C. § 1-01-06. Sutherland also acknowledges the common-law approach is not followed in every jurisdiction: “As the application of [the common-law] rule frequently results in manifest hardship, the [repealed] provision is sometimes treated as substantive even though in other cases similar provisions may be classified as remedial. This apparent inconsistency is not too surprising when it is considered that no clear line separates substance and procedure.” 1A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction, § 23.41 (6th ed.2002).
[¶ 20] I also part ways with the majority because their holding extinguishes, or at least has the potential to extinguish, Manitoba’s vested, substantive right to recover. Our law provides that “[n]o provision contained in this code may be so construed as to impair any vested right or valid obligation existing when it takes effect.” N.D.C.C. § 1-02-30. I believe legislative action repealing an existing statute can be fairly considered a “provision contained in this code” so that usurpation of a vested right via repeal of a remedy would be unlawful. Any doubt should be settled by this Court’s holding that “[statutory amendments may not operate retrospectively to abrogate a vested right or a valid obligation.” Gregory v. North Dakota Workers Comp., 1998 ND 94, ¶25, 578 N.W.2d 101. The reason is that vested rights create property interests which can be destroyed only upon compliance with due process requirements. Baeth v. Hoisveen, 157 N.W.2d 728, 731 (N.D.1968).
[¶ 21] Section 26.1-41-17, N.D.C.C., provided that a “basic no-fault insurer may recover no-fault benefits paid to or for the benefit of an injured person from the motor vehicle liability insurer of a secured person” under the listed circumstances. This statute created a basic no-fault insurer’s right to recover certain no-fault benefits it paid to an injured insured. The statute provided that “[t]he right of recovery and the amount thereof must be determined on the basis of tort law....” Id. Prior to repeal, the procedure for recovery was binding intercompany arbitration — but the substantive right to recover was controlled by tort law.
[¶ 22] Under North Dakota law, the right to recover “on the basis of tort law” vested when the cause of action arose. Larson v. Norkot Mfg. Inc., 2002 ND 175, ¶ 10, 653 N.W.2d 33 (quoting Budd v. Nixen, 6 Cal.3d 195, 98 Cal.Rptr. 849, 491 P.2d 433, 438 (1971)). A cause of action accrues once an injury has occurred and has manifested itself. Hoffner v. Johnson, 2003 ND 79, ¶ 11, 660 N.W.2d 909. Here, the injuries giving rise to the insurer’s payments stem from an August 6, 2000 motor vehicle accident. Thus, the law in effect on that date should apply, and Manitoba should be recognized as having had a vested right to recover upon payment of benefits that satisfied the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 26.1-41-17, notwithstanding subsequent legislative repeal of the procedure or method for that recovery.
[¶ 23] Finally, the repeal of N.D.C.C. § 26.1-41-17 was not an isolated revision, but was part of a larger undertaking to reform North Dakota’s no-fault insurance laws. Hearing on S.B.204.7 Before the House Transportation Comm., 59th N.D. Legis. Sess. (Mar. 3, 2005) (testimony of *794Rob Hovland, Chairman of Association of North Dakota Insurers). In addition to the repeal of N.D.C.C. § 26.1-41-17, this same bill amended five other statutes. 2005 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 274 (codified at N.D.C.C. §§ 23-12-14, 26.1-41-01, 26.1-41-09, 26.1-41-11 and 26.1-41-12). Retroactive treatment of N.D.C.C. § 26.1-41-17 begs the question whether the other amendments must likewise be applied retroactively. Such treatment becomes troublesome because the other amendments affect rights that appear more substantive in nature. See, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 26.1-41-01 (altering the definitions of “accidental bodily injury” and “occupying” to be more exclusive). The fact that several statutes were amended or repealed in one bill bespeaks caution when declaring retroactive treatment of one of the affected laws. I do not see that the majority has considered this impact or that it has exercised that caution.
[¶ 24] Ultimately, the impact of prospective treatment under the posture of this case is less than clear. Manitoba commenced this action to compel intercom-pany arbitration under section 26.1-41-17, N.D.C.C. The district court dismissed the case because it concluded Manitoba’s right to arbitrate terminated when section 26.1-41-17 was repealed. I would hold the district court’s conclusion to be a misapplication of law for the reasons stated above and would reverse and remand. On remand, I expect there might be questions whether Manitoba timely demanded arbitration, whether Manitoba has a remedy other than arbitration, whether Manitoba’s claims are time barred, and perhaps others. However, those questions have not been addressed by the district court, and neither I nor this Court should be guessing whether one of those — or other — issues might be dispositive.
[¶ 25] DANIEL J. CROTHERS and MARY MUEHLEN MARING, JJ., concur.