Haines v. Comfort Keepers, Inc.
393 P.3d 422
Alaska2017Background
- Verna Haines hired Comfort Keepers for in‑home care; Comfort Keepers assigned employee Luwana Witzleben as personal assistant. Witzleben stole Verna’s jewelry and prescription pain medication and substituted nonprescribed pills.
- Verna sued Comfort Keepers and Witzleben (negligent hiring, conversion, assault/battery, breach of contract, unjust enrichment) and timely demanded a jury trial; Verna later died and Peter Haines was substituted as personal representative.
- Comfort Keepers made a Rule 68 offer; Haines accepted the offer as to Comfort Keepers. Haines then sought entry of default against Witzleben conditioned on preserving his jury trial right for damages. The superior court entered default but expressly denied a jury trial on damages.
- The court held a bench hearing on damages, found no additional pain or suffering caused by Witzleben, and awarded zero damages and no attorney’s fees; the court also struck Haines’s unjust enrichment theory (seeking “street value” recovery for converted medication).
- On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the ruling striking unjust enrichment and the discovery rulings but held it was an abuse of discretion to grant default while denying the expressly conditioned jury demand; it vacated the default and remanded, and provided guidance on damages, punitive damages, and fees if default is reentered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haines) | Defendant's Argument (Comfort Keepers / Court position re: Witzleben) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of recovery for converted medication / unjust enrichment | Recovery may be measured by defendant’s gain ("street value") via unjust enrichment/restitution | Unjust enrichment/restitution unavailable where adequate legal remedies exist; damages should be measured by fair market value or owner’s loss | Court affirmed striking unjust enrichment theory; plaintiff had adequate legal remedies so restitution was improper |
| Discovery sanctions and attorney’s fees during discovery | Waiver of objections and fees were appropriate given Witzleben’s nonresponse | Court found Witzleben was pro se and may not have understood obligations; declined sanctions/fees | No abuse of discretion in denying sanctions and fees at discovery stage |
| Right to jury trial on damages after entry of default | Haines preserved jury right by expressly conditioning his default application on a jury determination of damages | Historically no constitutional right to jury on damages after default; court has discretion to assess damages without jury | Although no constitutional/statutory right to jury after default, court abused discretion by granting default while rejecting Haines’s explicit condition to keep a jury; default vacated and remanded |
| Effect of default on damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees | Entry of default established well‑pleaded allegations (including causation and harm), permitting noneconomic damages, possible punitive damages, and fees under AS 09.60.070 (serious criminal offense) | Trial court awarded no damages and denied punitive damages and statutory fees because it found no proven harm and concluded statute did not apply | On remand, default effects must be honored: well‑pleaded allegations that are not controverted are taken as true for liability/harm; noneconomic damages and punitive damages may be awarded; attorney’s fees under AS 09.60.070 are available because the complaint alleges conduct meeting statutory assault definition |
Key Cases Cited
- United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Pruitt ex rel. Pruitt, 38 P.3d 528 (Alaska 2001) (discussing restitution and limits on unjust enrichment recovery)
- Landers v. Municipality of Anchorage, 915 P.2d 614 (Alaska 1996) (standards for measuring damages for loss of personal property)
- Valley Hosp. Ass’n v. Bauneis, 141 P.3d 726 (Alaska 2006) (treatment of factual allegations after default and limits on proving damages)
- Haskins v. Shelden, 558 P.2d 487 (Alaska 1976) (availability of punitive damages where actual harm is shown)
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. O’Kelley, 645 P.2d 767 (Alaska 1982) (punitive damages focus on wrongdoer’s motive and culpability)