Alaska Ins. Co. v. Movin' On Const., Inc., No. S-835

• Court: Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
• Writing for the Court: Before RABINOWITZ; COMPTON; BURKE
• Citation: 718 P.2d 472
• Decision Date: 09 May 1986
• Docket Number: No. S-835
• Parties: ALASKA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MOVIN' ON CONSTRUCTION, INC., and Donald G. Hannah, Appellees.

Page 472

718 P.2d 472 ALASKA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
MOVIN' ON CONSTRUCTION, INC., and Donald G. Hannah, Appellees. No. S-835. Supreme Court of Alaska. May 9, 1986.
As Amended May 13, 1986.

Page 473

Roger G. Connor, James T. Robinson, Smith, Robinson, Gruening and Brecht, Anchorage, for appellant.

Donna C. Willard, Willoughby & Willard, Anchorage, for appellees.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This case arises out of Appellant Alaska Insurance Company's (AIC) denial of a claim for insurance coverage made by Appellee Movin' On Construction under a policy which it had purchased to cover its construction activities.

The claim followed the collapse of a house under which Movin' On had contracted to build a full basement. Movin' On subcontracted both the excavation and raising of the house. While the house was resting on crib jacks in its raised position, and before construction of the basement was completed, several days of rain caused one corner crib base to sink and the house to collapse.

Movin' On accepted blame for the accident and contacted Thomas Bowers, the insurance agent through which it had purchased the policy. Bowers notified Alaska Insurance Company, who had issued the policy. AIC hired an independent adjuster, who told Movin' On that he would recommend payment of his claim. Bowers then told Movin' On's president, Don Hannah, that he could begin to repair the house. Almost two months later, when the work was nearly complete, the claim was denied.

Movin' On sued AIC under several theories, including breach of contract and negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. The jury found unanimously in favor of Movin' On on the basis of fraud. It did not reach the other theories. We affirm and remand for modification of damages.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

A. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING AIC'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT?

At the close of all the evidence, AIC moved for a directed verdict, seeking a ruling by the trial court that coverage was excluded by the terms of the policy as a matter of law. On appeal, AIC challenges denial of that motion.

AIC moved for a directed verdict only "on the coverage question." Although Judge Shortell agreed with AIC's interpretation of the policy language, he denied AIC's motion for directed verdict. He instead asked counsel for AIC to submit jury instructions directing the jury to interpret the language of the exclusion according to AIC's position. Counsel for AIC agreed to this resolution without objection. The judge ultimately gave instructions parallel to the language in the exclusionary provision

Page 474

which was the focal point of the coverage issue.

Movin' On had raised several other issues at trial, including allegations of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. The jury found that the actions of AIC constituted fraud, and awarded Movin' On $329,558.17 in compensatory damages and $988,674.51 in punitive damages. In making its finding of fraud, the jury never reached the coverage issue. ¹

We need not decide whether Judge Shortell correctly denied AIC's motion for directed verdict. The jury found AIC liable under the theory of fraud, which would have been presented to them regardless of whether the trial court granted a directed verdict on the coverage issue or not. Since the jury did not reach the coverage issue, any error in denying AIC's motion for directed verdict was harmless.

B. DID THE COURT ERR IN ADMITTING THOMAS BOWERS' EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE ISSUE OF COVERAGE?

AIC contends that the trial court erred in allowing Thomas Bowers, the agent who sold the insurance policy to Movin' On, to give an expert opinion that the policy provided coverage for the collapse of the house. AIC argues that coverage is a question of law, thus admitting opinion on the issue of...