Harrell v. Calvin
403 P.3d 1182
| Alaska | 2017Background
- A duplex fire on July 11, 2013 killed Winnie Sue Willis; tenants included neighbor Brian Calvin (upper unit) and Willis’s family (lower unit).
- Investigators found a Big Chief electric fish smoker among debris and noted smoking odors; Calvin admitted he had smoked fish the night before and unplugged the smoker.
- Fire investigators considered multiple causes; deputy fire marshal’s report (received by Harrell in Jan 2014) listed the smoker as a possible cause; a private investigator’s October 2014 report concluded the smoker was "more probable than not" the origin.
- Tracy Harrell (personal representative of the estate) and Cindy Kloxin sued Calvin on July 20, 2015 (survival/wrongful death and individual negligent infliction of emotional distress claims), more than two years after the fire.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for Calvin as time-barred under two-year statutes of limitations, finding plaintiffs were on inquiry notice by July 12, 2013; the court also awarded Rule 82 attorney’s fees jointly and severally against the estate and the two individuals.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, holding inquiry notice began no later than July 12, 2013 and upholding the joint-and-several fee award against the individuals and the estate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims were timely under the discovery rule | Harrell/Kloxin: discovery rule tolled limitations because they lacked sufficient information to suspect Calvin until after July 20, 2013 | Calvin: plaintiffs had inquiry notice by July 12, 2013 (knowledge of fire, Willis’s death, and Calvin’s smoker) so limitations ran | Court: Inquiry notice existed by July 12, 2013; suit filed July 20, 2015 was time-barred |
| Whether actual-notice exception to tolling applies | Plaintiffs: relied on later investigation/report to show tolling should extend limitations | Calvin: plaintiffs received actual notice (private report) within limitations with sufficient time to sue; no exception applies | Court: Actual-notice exception not applicable; plaintiffs got actual notice in Oct 2014 and had reasonable time to file |
| Whether individual plaintiffs can be assessed attorney’s fees for estate-related litigation | Harrell/Kloxin: individual claims were secondary/derivative and not independently litigated, so individuals should not bear fees | Calvin: individuals asserted personal negligent infliction claims and thus are liable for costs/fees | Court: Emotional-distress claims are personal (not derivative); individuals may be assessed fees |
| Whether fee award should be apportioned rather than joint-and-several | Plaintiffs: joint-and-several liability improper because single dispositive issue related to estate claim; individual claims not separately litigated | Calvin: single dispositive issue (inquiry notice) applied to all claims; joint-and-several proper | Court: Within discretion to award joint-and-several where same issue disposed of all claims; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurn v. Greenway, 293 P.3d 480 (Alaska 2013) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and inquiry-notice dispositive facts)
- John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb (John’s Heating II), 129 P.3d 919 (Alaska 2006) (discussing when statute of limitations begins to run and inquiry-notice concept)
- Palmer v. Borg-Warner Corp., 818 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1990) (discovery rule and limitations-period principles)
- Cameron v. State, Alaska Power Auth., Inc., 822 P.2d 1362 (Alaska 1991) (inquiry notice vs. actual notice distinctions)
- Williams v. GEICO Cas. Co., 301 P.3d 1220 (Alaska 2013) (standard for reviewing attorney’s fee awards)
- Zaverl v. Hanley, 64 P.3d 809 (Alaska 2003) (representative vs. personal capacity and liabilities for fees)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 26 P.3d 1074 (Alaska 2001) (emotional distress is a personal, not derivative, claim)