third-party claim in Alaska

2024In Pouzanova the defendant in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit asserted that at least some of the plaintiff’s claimed noneconomic loss, specifically emotional distress and lost enjoyment of life, was caused not by the vehicle accident but rather by domestic violence in her household.46 The district court ruled that the defendant was not required to assert a third-party claim against the plaintiff’s husband for allocation of fault under AS 09.17.080, but the superior court reversed that decision on appeal.47 We granted a petition for hearing and reversed the superior court’s decision. 48 We sta

2024In Pouzanova the defendant in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit asserted that at least some of the plaintiff’s claimed noneconomic loss, specifically emotional distress and lost enjoyment of life, was caused not by the vehicle accident but rather by domestic violence in her household.46 The district court ruled that the defendant was not required to assert a third-party claim against the plaintiff’s husband for allocation of fault under AS 09.17.080, but the superior court reversed that decision on appeal.47 We granted a petition for hearing and reversed the superior court’s decision. 48 We sta

2024Pouzanova does not express whether the independent and unrelated incident (domestic violence) was before or after the vehicle accident, and, given the way the matter came to us, there was no discussion of a possible claim for aggravation of a pre-existing condition or of a possible superseding cause defense. 51 353 P.3d 782, 785 (Alaska 2015). 52 Id. at 787-91 . -26- 7685 the incident at issue in the action.”53 We noted that the superior court did not have the benefit of our Pouzanova decision, that the defendant was asserting “some of the plaintiff’s claimed damages were due to conduct entire

2024Pouzanova does not express whether the independent and unrelated incident (domestic violence) was before or after the vehicle accident, and, given the way the matter came to us, there was no discussion of a possible claim for aggravation of a pre-existing condition or of a possible superseding cause defense. 51 353 P.3d 782, 785 (Alaska 2015). 52 Id. at 787-91 . -26- 7685 the incident at issue in the action.”53 We noted that the superior court did not have the benefit of our Pouzanova decision, that the defendant was asserting “some of the plaintiff’s claimed damages were due to conduct entire

2002Price Co., 694 P.2d 782, 787 (Alaska 1985)). [41] See Beluga Mining Co. v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 973 P.2d 570, 578 (Alaska 1999) (citing Davis v. Dykman, 938 P.2d 1002, 1006 (Alaska 1997)). [42] Compare 3 AAC 26.060(1) ("Any person transacting a business of insurance who participates in the ... settlement of a claim ... shall fully disclose to a first-party claimant all relevant benefits and other provisions of coverage under which a claim may be covered.") (emphasis added) with 3 AAC 26.070(b) ("A person transacting a business of insurance who participates in the... settlement of a th

2002Price Co., 694 P.2d 782, 787 (Alaska 1985)). [41] See Beluga Mining Co. v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 973 P.2d 570, 578 (Alaska 1999) (citing Davis v. Dykman, 938 P.2d 1002, 1006 (Alaska 1997)). [42] Compare 3 AAC 26.060(1) ("Any person transacting a business of insurance who participates in the ... settlement of a claim ... shall fully disclose to a first-party claimant all relevant benefits and other provisions of coverage under which a claim may be covered.") (emphasis added) with 3 AAC 26.070(b) ("A person transacting a business of insurance who participates in the... settlement of a th

2002Price Co., 694 P.2d 782, 787 (Alaska 1985)). [41] See Beluga Mining Co. v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 973 P.2d 570, 578 (Alaska 1999) (citing Davis v. Dykman, 938 P.2d 1002, 1006 (Alaska 1997)). [42] Compare 3 AAC 26.060(1) ("Any person transacting a business of insurance who participates in the ... settlement of a claim ... shall fully disclose to a first-party claimant all relevant benefits and other provisions of coverage under which a claim may be covered.") (emphasis added) with 3 AAC 26.070(b) ("A person transacting a business of insurance who participates in the... settlement of a th

2001In the absence of a third-party claim under subsection .822(a), a potentially responsible party is free to bring a private action under subsection .$22(a) against other potentially responsible parties and, in so doing, may seek or ultimately be limited to apportioned damages 'under subsection See, e.g., Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp., 118 F.3d 1298, 1301 (9th Cir.1997).

2000Co., 841 P.2d 176, 180 (Alaska 1992). [31] Afcan v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Ins.

1980See Chemco Industrial Applicators, Co. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 366 F. Supp. 278, 286 (E.D.Mo. 1973) (applying Arkansas law identical to U.C.C. § 2-607).