fund doctrine in Alaska

2021The common fund doctrine provides that “a litigant . . . who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself . . . is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”43 In Ruggles v. Grow we implicitly applied the doctrine to conclude that when an insured recovers an insurer’s subrogated medical payments claim from a third-party in a tort suit, the “proceeds recovered must be paid to the insurer, less pro rata costs and fees.”44 We extended the doctrine in Sidney to conclude that an insured is entitled to pro rata fees upon recovering a subrogated medical

2021Common fund doctrine Under the common fund doctrine, “a litigant or lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”23 “In the insurance context, where an injured plaintiff confers a benefit on his or her insurer by securing recovery for both, 22 Beardsley v. Robert N. Jacobsen & Darlene F. Jacobsen Living Tr., 472 P.3d 500, 504 (Alaska 2020) (quoting Norton v. Herron, 677 P.2d 877, 880 (Alaska 1984)). 23 O’Donnell v. Johnson, 209 P.3d 128, 134 (Alaska 2009) (quoting Edwards v. Al

2021The common fund doctrine provides that “a litigant . . . who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself . . . is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”43 In Ruggles v. Grow we implicitly applied the doctrine to conclude that when an insured recovers an insurer’s subrogated medical payments claim from a third-party in a tort suit, the “proceeds recovered must be paid to the insurer, less pro rata costs and fees.”44 We extended the doctrine in Sidney to conclude that an insured is entitled to pro rata fees upon recovering a subrogated medical

2021Common fund doctrine Under the common fund doctrine, “a litigant or lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”23 “In the insurance context, where an injured plaintiff confers a benefit on his or her insurer by securing recovery for both, 22 Beardsley v. Robert N. Jacobsen & Darlene F. Jacobsen Living Tr., 472 P.3d 500, 504 (Alaska 2020) (quoting Norton v. Herron, 677 P.2d 877, 880 (Alaska 1984)). 23 O’Donnell v. Johnson, 209 P.3d 128, 134 (Alaska 2009) (quoting Edwards v. Al

2021Ridley, 84 P.3d 418, 433 (Alaska 2004) (quoting Edwards v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 920 P.2d 751, 754 (Alaska 1996)). 32 Id. 33 Id. at 421. -12- 7520 to collect on its liens only because “the plaintiffs’ lawyers created a fund that would not otherwise exist.”34 Under Alaska law, the four elements of a common fund recovery are met when: “(1) [T]he efforts of one party (2) result in the creation of a fund benefit[t]ing a third party (3) who is benefitted in a clear and well-defined manner, and (4) the third party is ready and willing to accept the benefits so obtained.”35 We have applied this doctrine

2014The doctrine is implicated any time one litigant’s success releases well-defined benefits for a limited and identifiable group of others.”34 The common fund doctrine has been applied to subrogation and class action cases where the plaintiff’s attorneys obtained a specific recovery for the benefit of other parties.35 For example, when an employee recovers on a personal injury or wrongful death claim against a third party, a pro rata share of the employee’s attorney’s fees and 34 Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium v. Settlement Funds Held For E.R., 84 P.3d 418, 433-34 (Alaska 2004) (internal

1995Id. at 769. [24] The only element of the September 4, 1990 settlement that does not require judicial review is the establishment of paternity.

1995Id. at 769. .

2021The common fund doctrine provides that “a litigant . . . who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself . . . is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”43 In Ruggles v. Grow we implicitly applied the doctrine to conclude that when an insured recovers an insurer’s subrogated medical payments claim from a third-party in a tort suit, the “proceeds recovered must be paid to the insurer, less pro rata costs and fees.”44 We extended the doctrine in Sidney to conclude that an insured is entitled to pro rata fees upon recovering a subrogated medical

1996The first question before us is whether the common fund doctrine is part of Alaska law. 2 That doctrine holds that “a litigant or a lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.” Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 , 100 S.Ct. 745, 749 , 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980). 3 The United States Supreme Court established the doctrine in the 1880s.

2009See Municipality of Anchorage v. Gallion, 944 P.2d 436, 447 (Alaska 1997) (explaining the com-pensable value of counsel's services may exceed the hours worked times the hourly rates (citing Municipality of Anchorage v. Gentile, 922 P.2d 248, 264 (Alaska 1996))); Gentile, 922 P.2d at 266 .

2009See Municipality of Anchorage v. Gallion, 944 P.2d 436, 447 (Alaska 1997) (explaining the com-pensable value of counsel's services may exceed the hours worked times the hourly rates (citing Municipality of Anchorage v. Gentile, 922 P.2d 248, 264 (Alaska 1996))); Gentile, 922 P.2d at 266 .

2021The common fund doctrine provides that “a litigant . . . who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself . . . is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”43 In Ruggles v. Grow we implicitly applied the doctrine to conclude that when an insured recovers an insurer’s subrogated medical payments claim from a third-party in a tort suit, the “proceeds recovered must be paid to the insurer, less pro rata costs and fees.”44 We extended the doctrine in Sidney to conclude that an insured is entitled to pro rata fees upon recovering a subrogated medical

2021It is true that the common fund doctrine does not extend to “general obligations that existed before the plaintiff’s injury.”42 We declined to apply the doctrine in Hendricks-Pearce v. State, Department of Corrections after the State recovered on a medical debt from a prisoner’s award in an unrelated suit.43 The State was only an “indirect beneficiar[y]” of the prisoner’s suit because his medical expenses were unrelated to the judgment in his favor, and so we rejected the prisoner’s argument that 39 (...continued) 920 P.2d at 756 ). 40 O’Donnell, 209 P.3d at 134 . 41 Hendricks-Pearce v. State,

2021It is true that the common fund doctrine does not extend to “general obligations that existed before the plaintiff’s injury.”42 We declined to apply the doctrine in Hendricks-Pearce v. State, Department of Corrections after the State recovered on a medical debt from a prisoner’s award in an unrelated suit.43 The State was only an “indirect beneficiar[y]” of the prisoner’s suit because his medical expenses were unrelated to the judgment in his favor, and so we rejected the prisoner’s argument that 39 (...continued) 920 P.2d at 756 ). 40 O’Donnell, 209 P.3d at 134 . 41 Hendricks-Pearce v. State,

2021Common fund doctrine Under the common fund doctrine, “a litigant or lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”23 “In the insurance context, where an injured plaintiff confers a benefit on his or her insurer by securing recovery for both, 22 Beardsley v. Robert N. Jacobsen & Darlene F. Jacobsen Living Tr., 472 P.3d 500, 504 (Alaska 2020) (quoting Norton v. Herron, 677 P.2d 877, 880 (Alaska 1984)). 23 O’Donnell v. Johnson, 209 P.3d 128, 134 (Alaska 2009) (quoting Edwards v. Al

2021Common fund doctrine Under the common fund doctrine, “a litigant or lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”23 “In the insurance context, where an injured plaintiff confers a benefit on his or her insurer by securing recovery for both, 22 Beardsley v. Robert N. Jacobsen & Darlene F. Jacobsen Living Tr., 472 P.3d 500, 504 (Alaska 2020) (quoting Norton v. Herron, 677 P.2d 877, 880 (Alaska 1984)). 23 O’Donnell v. Johnson, 209 P.3d 128, 134 (Alaska 2009) (quoting Edwards v. Al

2021Thus, the superior court correctly awarded the estate’s attorney the costs and fees for the attorney’s work securing the settlement.47 44 Id. 45 See In re Soldotna Air Crash Litig., 835 P.2d 1215, 1221-22 (Alaska 1992); AS 09.55.580(a), 09.60.040; Alaska R.

2015The Fund’s challenge to the statutory authority for the community harvest system raises three questions: (1) whether the Board has the authority to adopt regulations that grant permits to communities; (2) whether such regulations can permissibly differentiate among various patterns of use of a subsistence resource; and 30 (...continued) 01 (Alaska 2011)). 31 The reference is to Madison v. Alaska Dep’t of Fish & Game, 696 P.2d 168 (Alaska 1985), in which we held that subsistence uses could not be constitutionally limited to members of communities that had historically practiced subsistence hunt

2014Cos., 556 P.2d 525, 527 (Alaska 1976) (applying doctrine to workers’ compensation reimbursement statute). -15- 6899 costs is deducted from the workers’ compensation lien for the same injury.36 Likewise, when a hospital accrues a medical lien for care provided to an injured patient, the patient’s attorney fees must be deducted before the lien is paid from a settlement for those injuries.37 But the common fund doctrine should not be extended to general obligations that existed before the plaintiff’s injury — obligations that were not dependent on the creation of a settlement fund.

2014Cos., 556 P.2d 525, 527 (Alaska 1976) (applying doctrine to workers’ compensation reimbursement statute). -15- 6899 costs is deducted from the workers’ compensation lien for the same injury.36 Likewise, when a hospital accrues a medical lien for care provided to an injured patient, the patient’s attorney fees must be deducted before the lien is paid from a settlement for those injuries.37 But the common fund doctrine should not be extended to general obligations that existed before the plaintiff’s injury — obligations that were not dependent on the creation of a settlement fund.

2009If the lodestar figure is $45,060.75, as the State argues it should be, the actual total fees awarded would reflect a multiplier of about three. 12 . 920 P.2d at 756 n. 9 ("[The common fund doctrine is properly applied ... if '(1) the class of beneficiaries is sufficiently identifiable, (2) the benefits can be accurately traced, and (3) the fee can be shifted with some exactitude to those benefitting.'" (quoting Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 271 (9th Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2009See, e.g., Richter, Wimberley & Ericson, P.S. v. Honore, 29 Wash.App. 507 , 628 P.2d 1311, 1313-14 (1980); Travelers Ins.

2009See, e.g., Richter, Wimberley & Ericson, P.S. v. Honore, 29 Wash.App. 507 , 628 P.2d 1311, 1313-14 (1980); Travelers Ins.

2009Cf. Municipality of Anchorage v. Gallion, 944 P.2d 436, 447 (Alaska 1997) (stating that "[the superior court's observation about the difficulty of determining the value of the judgment remains relevant and valid," and holding the common fund doctrine did not apply).

2009See Municipality of Anchorage v. Gallion, 944 P.2d 436, 447 (Alaska 1997) (explaining the com-pensable value of counsel's services may exceed the hours worked times the hourly rates (citing Municipality of Anchorage v. Gentile, 922 P.2d 248, 264 (Alaska 1996))); Gentile, 922 P.2d at 266 .

1996Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir.1995); Camden I Condominium Ass’n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768 , 775 (11th Cir.1991); Mashburn v. National Healthcare, Inc., 684 F.Supp. 679, 692 (M.D.Ala.1988); but see Activision, 723 F.Supp. at 1375 ("almost always hovers around 30%”). 15 .Trial courts which elect to follow a percentage approach must exercise their independent discretion in arriving at a fair and reasonable fee award under the common fund doctrine.

1996Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 379 (9th Cir.1995); Camden I Condominium Ass’n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768 , 775 (11th Cir.1991); Mashburn v. National Healthcare, Inc., 684 F.Supp. 679, 692 (M.D.Ala.1988); but see Activision, 723 F.Supp. at 1375 ("almost always hovers around 30%”). 15 .Trial courts which elect to follow a percentage approach must exercise their independent discretion in arriving at a fair and reasonable fee award under the common fund doctrine.

1996City of Klawock v. Gustafson, 585 F.2d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1978) (“The common fund doctrine may be the earliest exception to the ‘American’ rule that losers in litigation are not hable for winners’ attorney fees.”).

1996City of Klawock v. Gustafson, 585 F.2d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1978) (“The common fund doctrine may be the earliest exception to the ‘American’ rule that losers in litigation are not hable for winners’ attorney fees.”).