Joshua M. Martinez & Robert Martinez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Charles E. Burnett v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 473 P.3d 316

Background

In Nov. 2011 Joshua Martinez crashed into Charles Burnett’s cabin, rupturing a heating-fuel tank and contaminating Burnett’s property; Burnett alleged bodily injury from fumes.
DEC required a DEC‑qualified contractor for cleanup; Burnett wanted to do the work himself but lacked required certifications; GEICO (insurer of Joshua via Robert Martinez’s policy) refused to authorize Burnett to self‑perform.
Cleanup by a DEC‑approved contractor under environmental engineer Suzan Amundsen occurred in Oct. 2013; DEC issued a site‑closure letter in Apr. 2014 (reserving right to require further action if needed).
Burnett sued the Martinezes and GEICO in 2012; GEICO later paid policy limits to settle and release claims against the Martinezes in 2014 while Burnett reserved claims against GEICO; the superior court granted summary judgment to GEICO on Burnett’s remaining claims.
This Court reversed in Burnett I, holding Burnett could attempt to prove GEICO owed him an independent duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
On remand the superior court held a hearing, adopted GEICO’s proposed findings on June 1 (Burnett’s proposed findings arrived June 4), found no independent duty owed to Burnett, awarded GEICO fees (including pre‑remand), and precluded the Martinezes from re‑participating after their 2014 dismissal with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court complied with Burnett I’s remand	Burnett: remand established facts entitling him to judgment that GEICO owed an independent duty	GEICO: remand required an evidentiary hearing to decide disputed facts; no established facts were created by the appellate reversal	Court: remand was followed; remand required fact‑finding at an evidentiary hearing — no preestablished facts entitled Burnett to judgment
Whether GEICO owed Burnett an independent duty under Restatement § 323	Burnett: he relied on GEICO’s undertaking and thus GEICO assumed an independent duty to him	GEICO: its conduct was ordinary claims adjustment to protect its insureds, not an independent agreement to benefit Burnett	Court: no clear error — record shows GEICO acted for its insureds and no independent undertaking to benefit Burnett was proven
Whether Burnett was denied due process by the court’s adoption of GEICO’s proposed findings and by awarding pre‑remand fees without consideration	Burnett: court adopted GEICO’s proposals before receiving his filings and awarded pre‑remand fees without giving him a fair chance to contest	GEICO: filings were late; the court set a reasonable deadline and Burnett filed after the clerk received them; Burnett had opportunity to argue about fees post‑remand	Court: no due process violation — deadline was reasonable, Burnett had opportunity to be heard and did oppose fee award before its entry
Whether the Martinezes could re‑enter or intervene after dismissal with prejudice	Martinezes: dismissal did not bar their continued participation; they sought to re‑assert interests and file motions	GEICO: the 2014 dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment as to claims against the Martinezes; res judicata and the remand did not revive their claims	Court: preclusion appropriate — dismissal acted as final judgment; Martinezes’ intervention/joinder arguments were waived for lack of briefing

Key Cases Cited

Burnett v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 389 P.3d 27 (Alaska 2017) (reversed summary judgment and remanded to allow plaintiff to try to prove GEICO owed an independent duty under Restatement § 323)
Alaskan Village, Inc. v. Smalley, 720 P.2d 945 (Alaska 1986) (undertaking for plaintiff’s benefit is prerequisite to liability under § 323)
Silides v. Thomas, 559 P.2d 80 (Alaska 1977) (a document is filed when received by the proper office, not when mailed)
Deptula v. Simpson, 164 P.3d 640 (Alaska 2007) (voluntary dismissal with prejudice is treated as a consent judgment and is res judicata)
DeNardo v. Calista Corp., 111 P.3d 326 (Alaska 2005) (stipulated dismissal with prejudice is res judicata as to issues raised or that could have been determined)