Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dolores Hunter, the personal representative of the estate of Benjamin G. Francis, appealed a series of orders following a jury verdict in a wrongful death, products liability, and fraud action against Philip Morris USA Inc. resulting from Francis’s death from lung cancer. Following the verdict, Hunter moved for a new trial on the basis of evidentiary rulings at trial and on the basis that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The superior court initially granted Hunter’s motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence but then granted Philip Morris’s motion to reconsider, vacated its first order and denied Hunter’s motion for a new trial. Because the superior court’s orders applied a test that was inconsistent with the “weight of the evidence” new trial standard the Alaska Supreme Court previously established to guide trial courts, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of Hunter’s motion. View "Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Dr. Michael Brandner suffered a heart attack in September 2009 and was admitted to Providence Alaska Medical Center for emergency bypass surgery. Dr. Kenton Stephens was the cardiac surgeon who performed the operation; Dr. Robert J. Pease administered anesthesia. Dr. Brandner was also a medical doctor, licensed to practice plastic and reconstructive surgery. Bradner sued the anesthesiologist and medical providers involved in the surgery. The superior court dismissed Bradner’s claims on summary judgment, concluding that Bradner had offered no admissible evidence that the defendants breached the standard of care or caused the patient any injury. On appeal Bradner relied on his expert witness’s testimony that certain surgical procedures were suboptimal and that patients generally tended to have better outcomes when other procedures are followed. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that this testimony was insufficient to raise any issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants had violated the standard of care in a way that caused injury to the patient. View "Brandner v. Pease" on Justia Law

Lee Stenseth was injured at work many years ago. He and his employer, the Municipality of Anchorage, entered into a compromise and release agreement (C&R) in August 1996 in which Stenseth waived all future benefits except medical benefits in exchange for $37,000. Stenseth retired from the Municipality in 1996, but he continued to receive medical benefits for his work-related injury, including narcotic pain medication. Ten years later, Stenseth was charged with multiple felonies related to selling or delivering narcotics that he had acquired, some from forged prescriptions modeled on the prescriptions for his work-related injury. Stenseth pleaded guilty to a number of felonies and served time in jail. He was released in June 2010. The Municipality sought to terminate future workers’ compensation benefits and be reimbursed for the benefits it paid out, alleging that Stenseth obtained those benefits by making a false statement or misrepresentation. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board dismissed the Municipality’s fraud petition after deciding that the parties had reached an enforceable settlement. The Municipality appealed the dismissal, arguing that any settlement of its fraud petition was void because the settlement did not meet the requirements set out in the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act and the Board’s regulations. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board’s decision. The Municipality appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, arguing that the Commission’s interpretation of the statute was incorrect and that the Commission incorrectly interpreted our decisions about estoppel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision. View "Municipality of Anchorage v. Stenseth" on Justia Law

In September 2013, "Erica G." filed a complaint for damages against Taylor Taxi, Inc., The Taylor Revocable Trust, and L & J Cabs, Inc. (collectively, Taylor Taxi). The complaint alleged that “a licensed taxi driver operating under a permit issued to Taylor Taxi” had sexually assaulted Erica in “a desolate area of Ship Creek Road.” The complaint’s sole cause of action alleged that Taylor Taxi was negligent “by failing to conduct an adequate background check of [the driver], failing to properly train [the driver] and failing to properly supervise [the driver].” Taylor Taxi’s answer denied the negligence allegation and asserted four affirmative defenses: failure to state a claim, failure to bring an action against an indispensable party, Taylor Taxi’s entitlement to rely on the Municipality of Anchorage’s licensure process and background check of the driver, and the independent contractor status of the driver. Taylor Taxi also filed a third-party complaint against the driver. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion or otherwise respond by the required response date. On the same day that the superior court granted defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment, plaintiff filed an untimely motion for an extension of time to file her opposition. The superior court denied plaintiff’s late-filed motion to extend the time to oppose summary judgment, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration or relief from judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court because although plaintiff’s attorneys provided "a long and shifting catalog of circumstances" to justify their failure to timely seek an extension, all lacked a nexus to the late filing. Plaintiff’s attorneys have thus never demonstrated that their failure to timely request an extension of time was caused by excusable neglect. View "Erica G. v. Taylor Taxi, Inc." on Justia Law

A 21-year-old intoxicated Hooper Bay resident, Louis Bunyan, committed suicide while he was detained in a holding cell by the City of Hooper Bay. His mother filed a wrongful death action against the City, alleging that the City’s negligence led to her son’s death. She sought damages in her individual capacity and on behalf of her son’s estate and her son’s minor children. The case proceeded to a jury trial and the jury returned a million-dollar judgment against the City. The City appealed, raising a number of issues. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s rulings in many respects. But the Court vacated the jury’s damages award and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of allocation of fault between the City and the deceased under AS 09.17.080. View "City of Hooper Bay v. Bunyan" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute over whether the owner of a wood chipper could be held jointly and severally liable, along with two property owners, for damages caused to their property by the chipper's leak of diesel fuel. The chipper's owner had leased it to another person, who abandoned it. The property owners claimed they were only severally liable, if at all, for a portion of the damages and that the chipper's owner was liable for the rest. A jury found that the chipper did not contaminate one of the two properties, but as for the other the jury found its owner jointly and severally liable, along with the chipper's owner. The superior court then equitably allocated damages among the liable property owner, the owner of the chipper, and the chipper's lessee. This allocation left the property owner liable for most of his own loss. property owners appealed the equitable allocation of damages, and an evidentiary ruling and the award of attorney's fees. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court properly construed the governing statutes and the evidence rules and that its award of attorney's fees was not an abuse of discretion. View "Oakly Enterprises, LLC v. NPI, LLC" on Justia Law

In a personal injury trial resulting from a car accident, plaintiff sought to cross-examine defendant's medical expert about his substantial connection to the insurance industry in an effort to prove bias. In response to defense counsel's motion in limine, the district court ruled that plaintiff could not refer to the fact that defendant was insured or that her insurance company and others had hired the expert witness numerous times. The trial court did permit plaintiff to cross-examine the expert witness about his financial interest in continuing to work for "defendants" and "defense attorneys." On appeal from the district court judgment, the superior court concluded that the district court had abused its discretion by excluding evidence of the expert's connections to the insurance industry, reasoning that the expert witness and the company which hired him had extensive dealings with the defendant's insurance company and the insurance industry more broadly and that this information was relevant to the question of bias. The Supreme Court agreed with the superior court that the district court erred in ruling that relevant evidence of the expert witness's substantial connection to the insurance industry should have been excluded. But the district court's error was harmless because at trial, plaintiff was able to elicit testimony about the witness's connection to the insurance industry. The Court therefore vacated the superior court's remand order and reinstated the district court's judgment. View "Ray v. Draeger" on Justia Law

In December 2008 Michael Cooper caused a car accident that injured Samuel Thompson. During the second trial on compensatory damages the superior court excluded any evidence that Thompson had been assaulted by his then-girlfriend after the accident and limited the testimony of a defense expert witness. The superior court also gave an instruction on liability for additional harm to which Cooper objected. The jury returned a $1.4 million verdict in favor of Thompson, which exceeded his offer of judgment and thus entitled him to an award of attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 68. Cooper and his employer appealed the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instruction, and fee award. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the complete exclusion of the evidence that Thompson had been assaulted because it was relevant to his claim of continuing injury suffered as a result of the car accident. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "Cooper v. Thompson" on Justia Law

A man working at a concrete-pouring job was assaulted by another worker at the job site. The injured man filed a lawsuit against the assailant and both the concrete-pouring company and its owner. Although the company’s commercial general liability insurer initially provided a defense attorney in the negligence action, the insurer later brought a declaratory judgment action alleging that the incident fell within the policy’s employee-exclusion clause. The superior court granted summary judgment to the insurance company. The Supreme Court affirmed. "[B]ecause courts look to workers’ compensation law to give meaning to the phrase 'arising out of and in the course of employment' in workers’ compensation/employers’ liability policies, and because commercial general liability policies are designed to avoid the existence of an overlap or a gap between workers’ compensation/employers’ liability and commercial general liability policies, sister jurisdictions interpret the same phrase in employee-exclusion clauses in commercial general liability policies in light of the identical language in workers’ compensation statutes. We have found no case law holding that the contractual phrase 'arising out of and in the course of employment' in commercial general liability exclusions should be interpreted differently from the identical phrase in workers’ compensation statutes. For purposes of this appeal, we will use workers’ compensation case law to interpret the meaning of the commercial general liability policy’s exclusion of coverage for bodily injury "arising out of and in the course of employment.'" The employer did not purchase workers' compensation coverage. And in reading the general liability policy in question, the Supreme Court concluded the superior court did not err in determining that the incident here fell within the employee-exclusion claim. View "Devine v. Great Divide Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Appellant Tommie Patterson was injured in a hit-and-run accident and sued his car insurance company claiming it had breached his insurance contract by failing to reasonably compensate him for his injuries. He later moved to amend his complaint to include racketeering, embezzlement, mail fraud, and bad faith claims, but the superior court denied the motion. A jury returned a liability verdict that was smaller than the insurance company's offer of judgment. The superior court ruled that the insurance company was the prevailing party and awarded attorney's fees and costs. Patterson appealed the denial of his motion to amend, the awarding of attorney's fees and costs, and several of the court's other procedural and evidentiary rulings. Finding no abuse of discretion in the court's rulings, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Patterson v. GEICO General Insurance Company" on Justia Law