 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SUMMARY DECISION & ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT BODILY INJURY NIED CLAIM CODER ARBITRATION ALASKA DALE RESOLVE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION COVERAGE ACCIDENT SEVERE MEM STATE FARM INSURANCE CONTRACT MEMORANDUM DECISION DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DISPUTE BYSTANDER CLAIM BODILY INJURIES TRIER-OF-FACT SEPARATE REQUEST PARTIES SCENE FORESEEABILITY SHOCK INSURER DAMAGES |
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DALE A. CODER, JOE CODER, a minor, and HEATHER CODER, a minor,
Defendants.
Case No. 4FA-98-991 CIV
SUMMARY DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff State Farm moved for clarification of this court's Memorandum Decision and Order of
l judgment in this case. State Farm believes an issue remains to be resolved by the court regarding
tional distress. The Coders have assumed that the declaratory judgment action was completed and the
rm was arbitration. An examination of the portion of the court's November 27, 1998, memorandum
fliction of emotion distress ("NIED"), along with the differing interpretations of the parties, has
n of the court's decision with respect to whether Dale's NIED claim falls within coverage.
A bystander claim for negligently inflicted emotional distress is permissible when a person closely
ty to the scene of the accident suffers severe and foreseeable emotional distress due to shock
ing closely on the heels of the accident. E.g., M.A. v. United States, 951 P.2d 851, 856 (Alaska
Dale Coder's shock upon his arrival at the accident scene and observing his seriously injured wife
nts for asserting a bystander claim. Mem. Dec. & Order, at 11-15. Although foreseeability was not
quivalent to finding that foreseeability requirements for bringing a bystander claim were met.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
