Clear blue skies, bright sunshine and a warm breeze were tempting distractions, but a midnight deadline forced lawmakers to focus on finishing the 2005 legislative session.

And like any good drama, the session's end on Saturday was marked with anger and laughter, division and cooperation, tenacity and acceptance.

Legislative proposals making news this session touched on everything from breast-feeding to gambling, from coyote hunting to insurance reform, from spaying and neutering pets to controlling illegal drugs. Lawmakers discussed topics ranging from the inane to the germane, but each bill proposed was important to someone.

Lawmakers agreed to limit access to over-the-counter medications that contain ingredients used to make the illegal street drug methamphetamine (Senate Bill 147).

In Senate Bill 514, the legislators increased salaries for the governor and other elected officials including justices and judges -- but they left the legislative branch out of that bill.

One bill that appeared on its way to passage a few weeks ago but was derailed was table games legislation. Senate Bill 442 bill would have given four counties with racetracks the right to hold local elections on whether the tracks should be able to offer casino-style table games. Despite a vigorous lobbying effort, the bill got tangled with insurance and tort reform issues and ran out of time. House Speaker Robert S. Kiss, D-Raleigh, has suggested the measure could be taken up later this year in special session.

'Third Party Bad Faith'

Many discussions this session have centered on West Virginia's insurance market. The proposals involved changing some of West Virginia's civil justice laws, an endeavor never achieved without a legislative fight.

Everyone agreed consumers needed help finding insurance for their cars, homes and businesses, and they especially needed help with rising premiums. But agreeing on who was serving consumers better was next to impossible.

Gov. Joe Manchin wanted to eliminate third-party bad-faith lawsuits -- cases in which a claimant sues another person's insurance company because a claim was not handled fairly, according to provisions of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Senate Bill 418, as amended by the House of Delegates, eliminated those lawsuits in lieu of an administrative remedy within the West Virginia Insurance Commission. The bill also requires all property/casualty insurance companies to pay $4,200 each into a new trust fund that will be used to compensate claimants who file valid third-party bad-faith complaints with the commission. SB418 expands the duties of the insurance consumer advocate, requires the advocate to be an attorney and allows the advocate to represent aggrieved consumers in their bad-faith administration complaints. In addition, the bill requires biannual rate filings by automobile insurers so the commission can track rates more closely.

The Senate agreed to the House version and passed the bill Saturday evening.

In return for all those changes, Manchin promised consumers they will begin to see about $53 million in rate reductions on automobile insurance premiums within 90 days of the bill's passage. And as many critics of those purported rebates began saying late Saturday, let the 90-day countdown begin.

Insurance Reform

Another contentious piece of insurance reform legislation was Senate Bill 30, which was amended in the House to strip out one of its three major provisions. The Senate unanimously agreed to the new version of the bill, and SB30 now does two things.

First, it will allow commercial insurers to file for new rates and begin using those new rates immediately, rather than waiting for prior approval from the Insurance Commission. The commission has the ability to review the rate and change it if the new level is considered inappropriate.

Second, SB30 allows homeowners' insurance carriers to choose one of two methods for reducing its book of business. The company can elect not to renew up to 1 percent of its policyholders per county each year, or it could have the option of not renewing homeowners with two paid claims within a three-year period. The provisions do not mean the companies necessarily will begin non-renewing customers, but the insurance lobby has said giving companies the option will improve their ability to manage their risk and will encourage more companies to offer insurance in West Virginia.

On the eve of day 60, Delegate Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, was able to get a third provision stricken from SB30. The third provision of the bill, called a value policy law, relates to how much insurance companies pay to replace a home when it has been destroyed. The law would have affected how much a homeowner could get under an insurance policy if he decided not to rebuild the home.

The insurance industry took a public-relations beating this session, but the final version of the bill was completely amenable to the industry, according to Gray Marion, executive vice president of the Professional Independent Insurance Agents of West Virginia.

"We're delighted with the final legislation," he said.

More Tort Reform

As if those insurance issues weren't enough, the Legislature also addressed how damages are assigned in civil lawsuits with more than one defendant. Like SB418, Senate Bill 421 was part of Manchin's agenda.

According to existing law, multiple defendants in a civil action are jointly liable, which means one defendant could end up paying an entire jury award, regardless of whether that defendant is 1 percent or 99 percent at fault. If other defendants can't pay their share of an award, the "deep pockets" have to pay the rest.

The final version of the bill makes any defendant found 30 percent or more at fault jointly liable, meaning one defendant could pay more of an award than another regardless of the degree of fault. For those found to have less than 30 percent responsibility, they pay just their percentage of fault as determined by a jury.

If the plaintiff has not been paid the full verdict six months after it has been rendered, anyone bearing 10 percent or more liability could be subject to a reallocation of the remaining unpaid award. Anyone with less than 10 percent liability is not subject to reallocation.

Deliberate Intent

One issue the labor and business community came together on involved tightening up the provisions for "deliberate intent" cases -- lawsuits filed by injured workers who believe their employer directly contributed to an on-the-job injury.

Senate Bill 744 passed the Legislature April 7 and was an "agreed-to" bill, according to Kenny Perdue, president of the West Virginia AFL-CIO. Perdue said several business and labor groups joined together in their support for the measure.

"There was an opinion that there was inequity in the (deliberate intent) statute, so effort was made to put some fairness back," Perdue said. "There is a perception out there that people are getting deliberate intent that didn't qualify, so SB744 tightened the loophole and made it more appropriate."

Two other tort reform measures focused on health care providers. House Bill 3174 states expressions of apology, responsibility, sympathy, condolence or a general sense of benevolence made by a health care provider to a patient cannot be admitted as evidence of an admission of liability.

House Bill 2011 removes liability from health care providers where an injury has resulted from a prescribed drug or medical device so long as the provider prescribed followed federal guidelines, such as those from the Food and Drug Administration. The bill is designed to protect health care providers from lawsuits such as those filed against pharmaceutical companies that make drugs found to be harmful.

"What happens is the suit is brought against the manufacturer, and that's just fine ... but oftentimes the provider gets drug into it as well," explained Sen. Evan Jenkins, D-Cabell. "... If the FDA has given its stamp of approval, that's the comfort level (the bill provides).

Sen. Mike Oliverio, D-Monongalia, said he believed "that we all know in passing this bill we are providing protection to physicians ... and affirming our confidence in the FDA.

Pensions

Voters soon will be asked to give state government permission to refinance about $5.5 billion in public pension debts on the bond market.

Manchin has announced a June 25 special election on the bond issue. The bulk of the unfunded liability is within the Teachers Retirement System, a defined benefit program that ran into such deep red ink that legislators closed the plan in 1991 and created a new plan for future hires. Lawmakers put the "old fund" debt on a 40-year payment plan that will eat up $350 million in general revenue this year. Proponents for the bond issue have said bonding out the debt will lower those annual payments, freeing up revenues for other uses.

But lawmakers have made a potentially risky decision -- they are going to reopen the defined benefit program for new teachers and give teachers in the 14-year-old defined contribution plan (the "new" plan) the opportunity to move into the defined benefit plan. All new teachers hired after July 1 will be part of the consolidated benefit plan.

Not everyone was thrilled with the idea.

"I think we need to really listen what we're doing. ... Go ask General Motors why they may file bankruptcy this year. It's for one reason: defined benefit plan," said Sen. Andy McKenzie, R-Ohio. "... Why do you think steel filed bankruptcy? One of the reasons is the defined benefit plan."

According to David Haney, executive director of the West Virginia Education Association, the switch will work because the state pays less into the defined benefit plan than the defined contribution plan, saving the state an estimated $1.8 billion over 30 years.

In addition, teachers in the "new" plan will have to vote on whether to change plans. At least half of those teachers must agree to vote on the switch, and at least half of those voting have to approve the change. If it is approved, all teachers move into the consolidated benefit plan. Haney said the legislation provides provisions to ensure teachers moving back to the "old" plan will get the best value for their retirement funds.