 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
K & K Recycling11/14/2003
to remove the dredge: $500 for Seuffert's contact with governmental agencies, $73,530 against AGC and Seuffert for Seuffert's placement of his camp, $1 against AGC and Seuffert for the berm placement, and $49,020 against AGC for the assignment to Seuffert. Judge Funk awarded prejudgment interest accruing from August 7, 1998, when K&K;sent its letter containing the threat of litigation. Final judgment was entered against Seuffert and AGC in September 2001.
K&K;appeals the court's orders concerning the dredge equipment and facilities in the Old Town and its denial of K&K;s Rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery and Rule 77(k) motion to reconsider. K&K;also appeals the superior court's denial of its summary judgment motions for breach of contract, repudiation, interference with a contract or prospective economic opportunity, joint and several liability, and conversion/trespass, as well as the court's dismissal of K&K;s punitive damages. Finally, K&K;challenges three jury instructions on damages.
AGC appeals the court's refusal to enter summary judgment on its claims that the contract was assignable and that the novation meant that AGC was not liable for Seuffert's conduct. AGC also appeals the court's award of attorney's fees to K&K;as the prevailing party.
Seuffert appeals the court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict on K&K;s method of proving delay damages, its denial of his motion for summary judgment on K&K;s claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by contacting government agencies, and the applicability to the camp location and berm claims of the court's order that prejudgment interest shall run on all claims from August 7, 1998.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Superior Court Erred in Granting Seuffert Summary Judgment on the Issue of the Equipment and Facilities in the Old Town.
Seuffert's summary judgment motion argued that K&K;was not entitled to the Old Town or its contents under its agreement with AGC or, alternatively, that K&K;and Seuffert had reached an accord and satisfaction at the injunction hearing whereby K&K;released its claim concerning the Old Town and its contents. K&K;s summary judgment contended that the contract encompassed "all equipment and facilities associated with the operation of the dredge, regardless of where located on AGC's Chicken claims." The superior court granted Seuffert's motion and denied K&K;s, but it is unclear if the court based this decision on contract interpretation or on the accord and satisfaction argument. Because genuine issues of material fact exist, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Seuffert.
1. Standard of review
We review orders granting or denying summary judgment de novo. "Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, we will uphold summary judgment if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In particular, a grant of summary judgment based upon contract interpretation is subject to de novo review because interpretation of contract language is a question of law. The intent of the parties when entering a contract is a question of fact and is thus reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; summary judgment is improper when the evidence before the superior court establishes a factual dispute as to the intent of the contracting parties.
2. Contract interpretation could not support a grant of summary judgment to Seuffert or K&K;as to personal property and equipment in the Old Town of Chicken, but the buildings in the Old Town were not included in the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|