 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dykema v. Carolina Emergency Physicians3/4/2002
(4) have never been repealed and that, in any event, the caps were "impliedly reenacted" by 1994 Act No. 497, effective July 1, 1994 as to causes already filed, or that, at the latest, these caps were reinstated by 1997 Act No. 155, effective June 14, 1997 (and applying to claims or actions pending on that date). We disagree.
Initially, we agree with the trial court that under Southeastern and Knoke, the statutory caps set forth in 15-78-120(a)(3)&(4) were impliedly repealed by adoption of the Uniform Contribution Act. Given Southeastern's holding that the pro rata liability provisions of the Uniform Contribution Act are inconsistent with the liability limits in section (a)(1), and Knoke's subsequent recognition that the same reasoning applies to the limits in (a)(2), it is patent that the liability limits set forth in subsections (a)(3)&(a)(4) were likewise impliedly repealed by the Legislature's adoption of the Uniform Contribution Act in 1988. The question remains, however, whether the limits were subsequently reenacted.
GHS contends the limits in (a)(3)&(a)(4) were "impliedly" reenacted by 1994 Act. No. 497. We disagree. The 1994 Act simply reenacted the statutory caps set forth in section 15-78-120(a)(1)(and purported to make them retroactive to April, 1988, something this Court held the Legislature was without authority to do in Steinke); the 1994 Act did nothing to re-enact the remaining subsections. Accordingly, the trial court correctly ruled the statutory caps as set forth in subsections (3)&(4) were not reenacted by the 1994 Act.
However, by 1997 Act No. 155, Part II, ยง 55, the Legislature reenacted all four subsections, and made the act applicable to all claims pending its effective date [June 14, 1997]. in 1994. 1994 Act No. 497. Although this Court has not previously specifically held subsections (3)&(4) were impliedly repealed, it is patent under Southeastern and Knoke that they were in fact impliedly repealed and have been so since adoption of the Uniform Contribution Act in 1988. Although 1997 Act No. 155 was sufficient to re-enact the remaining subsections, under Steinke, &(4) invalid. We disagree. Southeastern and Knoke implicitly hold those sections were impliedly repealed by the Legislature's adoption of the Uniform Contribution Act in 1988.
|