 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
D 1983 (SEE ENDNOTE 1) CLAIMS. (SEE ENDNOTE 2) THIS MOTION IS OPPOSED. (SEE ENDNOTE 3) ORAL ARGUMENT HAS BEEN HEARD.
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COVERAGE STATUTE PREJUDGMENT COURT INSURANCE POLICY LIMITS ALASKA PROVISION SETTLEMENT HUGHES EXCESS NIELSON HUNTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT INSURANCE COMPANY INSURER PAY PREJUDGMENT AMOUNT MANDATE GRANTS OBLIGATION AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE GENUINE MATERIAL FACT PARTY HARRINGTON SUPREME COURT ADVERSE VERDICT INSURANCE CONTRACT |
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE JOHN K. NIELSON, and ANNE NIELSON, Plaintiff, vs. Chris HUNTER, Defendant Case No. 3AN-97-135 CI MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs John and Anne Nielson agreed to settle their case against Chris Hunter for the policy disagreement as to whether settling for the policy limit included prejudgment interest, the parties on this sole remaining issue. Progressive Insurance Companies, Mr. Hunter's insurer, has already orney fees in addition to the $100,000 policy limit). STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment may be granted only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving tate of Arrowwood v. State, 894 P.2d 642, 644 n.2 (Alaska 1995). The court draws all factual of a genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment. Beilgard v. State, 896 P.2d 230 DISCUSSION Although caselaw provides some guidance, this precise issue has not yet been addressed in a nce v. Harrington, 918 P.2d 1022 (Alaska 1996), a case based on a similar dispute but different for "policy limits" should be construed to mean "what an insurance company would have to pay under erse verdict." Id. The insurance company had argued that although a provision in the policy statedSNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
