Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Floyd Cornelison injured his back at work in 1996 while shoveling dirt. He had back surgery later that year, but it did little to improve his condition. The Board found he was permanently and totally disabled (PTD) in 2001 under the "odd-lot doctrine." TIG Insurance, the workers’ compensation insurer for Floyd’s employer, did not contest that he was PTD; it reclassified his workers’ compensation benefits as PTD in 2000. Floyd also received Social Security disability payments, and the employer received an offset for those payments. The employer and TIG challenged Cornelison's continuing eligibility for workers’ compensation, relying on surreptitious video surveillance and a doctor’s report issued after the doctor viewed an edited surveillance video. Cornelison and his wife sued TIG and a number of others involved in the attempt to terminate benefits; they alleged several causes of action, contending that the video had been purposely edited to provide a false picture of the employee’s physical abilities and that the defendants had participated to varying degrees in a scheme to defraud the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board. The trial court granted summary judgment or dismissal as to all of the defendants on all counts. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The Court concluded the Cornelisons provided enough evidence to show that a material factual dispute existed about the accuracy of the edited videos and the manner in which the videos were created. They also presented more than generalized claims of emotional distress. Because the superior court failed to address the issues in dispute in the IIED claim against certain persons involved with the making of the videos, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on this claim and remand to the superior court. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cornelison v. TIG Insurance" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit federal Court of Appeals certified two questions of Alaska law to the State Supreme Court. Ingaldson Fitzgerald was an Alaska law firm. Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. (ALPS) was a Montana insurance company and risk-retention group. From April 29, 2007, to April 29, 2008, ALPS insured Ingaldson Fitzgerald. Ingaldson Fitzgerald’s insurance policy with ALPS insured the firm against claims arising from “an act, error or omission in professional services that were or should have been rendered by [Ingaldson Fitzgerald].” The policy expressly excluded from coverage any claims arising from conversion or disputes over fees. The policy also contained a provision providing that Ingaldson Fitzgerald would reimburse ALPS for fees and costs ALPS incurred in defending non-covered claims. In 2008 the bankruptcy trustee for the bankrupt estate of a former client of Ingaldson Fitzgerald, in conjunction with a separate former client of the firm, brought a claim against the firm arising out of Ingaldson Fitzgerald’s actions in disbursing from and withdrawing fees and costs against a retainer. The former client and the trustee sought recovery of that retainer, and asserted claims against Ingaldson Fitzgerald for, among other things, restitution, disgorgement, and conversion. The Ninth Circuit asked: (1) whether Alaska law prohibited enforcement of a policy provision entitling an insurer to reimbursement of fees and costs incurred by the insurer defending claims under a reservation of rights, where (a) the insurer explicitly reserved the right to seek such reimbursement in its offer to tender a defense provided by independent counsel, (b) the insured accepted the defense subject to the reservation of rights, and (c) the claims were later determined to be excluded from coverage under the policy; and (2) if yes, then did Alaska law prohibit enforcement of a policy provision entitling an insurer to reimbursement of fees and costs incurred by the insurer defending claims under a reservation of rights, where (a) the insurer explicitly reserved the right to seek such reimbursement in its offer to tender a defense provided by independent counsel, (b) the insured accepted the defense subject to the reservation of rights, and (c) it is later determined that the duty to defend never arose under the policy because there was no possibility of coverage? The Alaska Supreme Court answered both certified questions “yes.” View "Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C." 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

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

An adult passenger in a car was injured in a single-car accident. The passenger and his family brought suit against the vehicle’s unlicensed minor driver, the minor’s mother, the owner of the car, the insurance policy holder, the insurer, and the insurance adjuster who handled the claims arising from the accident. The passenger’s father attempted to raise a contractual interference claim, but the superior court concluded that the complaint did not state such a claim on his behalf. The superior court dismissed the father’s only other claim (intentional infliction of emotional distress), removed the father’s name from the case caption, and ordered the father to cease filing pleadings on behalf of other parties. After the superior court judge dismissed him from the action, the passenger’s father attempted to file a first amended complaint, which expressly stated his contractual interference claim on the theory that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts between his son and his son’s doctors. But the superior court denied the father leave to amend the complaint because the father had already been dismissed from the case. Following a settlement among all of the other plaintiffs and defendants (which the father did not join) the superior court granted final judgment to the insurer. The insurer moved for attorney’s fees against the father under Alaska Civil Rule 82, but the father never responded to that motion. The superior court granted the award without soliciting a response from the father, and the father appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing the father’s claims and denying leave to amend the complaint because the proposed first amended complaint was futile. But because the superior court had barred the father from filing any further pleadings in the case and had removed his name from the caption, the superior court had a responsibility to inform the self-represented father that he was permitted to file an opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees. Therefore, the Court vacated the fee award and remanded the case to the superior court to afford the father an opportunity to respond to the insurer’s motion for reasonable attorney’s fees. View "Bush v. Elkins" on Justia Law

A worker was left a paraplegic after a 1976 work-related motor vehicle accident. He suffered a number of medical complications related to his injuries. In 2007, his employer controverted some aspects of his medical care, and he filed a written workers’ compensation claim. Shortly before the hearing on the claim, the employer withdrew most of its controversions. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board decided that some of the controversions were frivolous, unfair, or in bad faith. It imposed a statutory penalty and reported its findings about frivolous or unfair controversions to the Alaska Division of Insurance. The employer appealed, and the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission reversed the Board in part, deciding as a matter of law that the Board could not impose a penalty for some of the controversions. The Commission decided that other appeal points were moot. The worker appeals the Commission’s decision reversing the penalties and some attorney’s fees; the employer cross-appeals the Commission’s decisions about preservation of the controversion issues and mootness. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision that the controversion issue was properly before the Board, but reversed regarding the penalties issue. View "Harris v. M-K Rivers" on Justia Law

A firefighter developed prostate cancer when he was in his mid-fifties, after working for nearly 30 years. He filed a workers’ compensation claim under a new statute creating a presumption that certain diseases in firefighters, including prostate cancer, are work related when specific conditions are met. The employer contended that the firefighter could not attach the presumption of compensability because he had not strictly complied with statutory and regulatory medical examination requirements. The employer also wanted to present expert testimony that the cause of prostate cancer was unknown. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board heard the claim and refused to consider parts of the expert’s testimony, deciding that the firefighter was eligible for benefits because he had attached the presumption of compensability by substantially complying with the statutory requirements and the employer had not rebutted the presumption. On appeal, the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission agreed, but reversed the Board’s decision disallowing the expert testimony. The Commission decided that the employer could rebut the presumption through its expert’s testimony that the cause of prostate cancer was unknown, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. Because the employer also contended that the firefighter-presumption statute violated the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, the State of Alaska intervened on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision that the firefighter attached the presumption by substantially complying with the applicable requirements. However, the Court reversed the Commission’s decision that the employer could rebut the presumption through expert testimony that there was no known cause of prostate cancer. View "Adamson v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

When Appellant Todd Christianson was sued by a former employee for severe personal injuries suffered while working for appellant's landscaping business, appellant tendered his defense to his general liability insurer. It did not accept his tender - instead, it sent him a letter that told him he should defend himself, noting an exclusion for claims of employees. Appellant then began to incur defense expenses. No insurer on the policies obtained by appellant's insurance broker, Conrad-Houston Insurance (CHI), ever defended him in the lawsuit. Nearly four years after receiving the insurer’s letter, appellant sued CHI for malpractice. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the superior court applied the discovery rule and dismissed the malpractice lawsuit because it was filed after the applicable three-year statute of limitations had run. The superior court ruled that because the insurer’s letter put appellant on notice he might have a claim against CHI, the statute of limitations had begun to run more than three years before appellant sued CHI. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court.View "Christianson v. Conrad-Houston Insurance" on Justia Law

In 2007, appellant Brent McCormick suffered a back injury while pushing a net reel aboard the F/V CHIPPEWA, owned by Chippewa, Inc. The day after his injury McCormick was treated with ibuprofen. Later that night rough seas caused him to fall out of his bunk and hit his head. McCormick continued to suffer back pain and dizziness and later was treated by medical specialists. In 2010, McCormick filed a complaint against Chippewa, Inc. and Louis Olsen (the vessel’s captain), alleging “unseaworth[i]ness” of the F/V CHIPPEWA and negligence in failing to ensure workplace safety and provide proper medical care. Chippewa had a liability insurance policy with a $500,000 per occurrence limit, including a “cannibalizing” provision specifying that costs and expenses spent “investigating and/or defending any claim” would be deducted from the policy limit. The parties ultimately agreed to settle the case for the "policy limit," but were unable to agree on what "policy limit" meant. Each side sought to enforce the agreement based on their respective understandings of the term. During summary judgment proceedings, one party asked for time to conduct discovery regarding the parties’ intent. The superior court granted summary judgment to the other party and denied the discovery request as moot. Because it was an abuse of discretion not to allow discovery before ruling on the summary judgment motion, the Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case so that appropriate discovery could be conducted. View "McCormick v. Chippewa, Inc." on Justia Law