Madonna v. Tamarack Air, Ltd.
2013 Alas. LEXIS 51
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Madonna owned a two-seat Aviat Husky; Tamarack provided annual maintenance and negligently damaged the plane while on Tamarack’s airfield after inspection.
- Allstate, Tamarack’s insurer, offered to pay for repairs at Madonna’s chosen shop and related costs, but Madonna remained dissatisfied and pursued his own plan.
- Madonna dismantled and shipped the plane to the Aviat factory in Wyoming for repair, incurring over $50,000 in costs including transit, pilot, insurance, and a required transponder for Canada.
- Tamarack admitted liability but argued Madonna failed to mitigate by choosing an out-of-state repair, seeking most damages to be limited to local repairs.
- At trial, Madonna claimed seven errors by the court, including contract-based damages, punitive damages, evidentiary rulings, lost income, charter costs, and interest-related claims; the jury awarded most costs of out-of-state repairs and some charter costs, with prejudgment interest.”
- The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, holding no reversible errors and that the evidence supported the damages awarded and rulings on the disputed issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract vs. tort framework | Madonna contends duties arose from an implied contract. | Tamarack had no post-accident contractual obligation to repair. | No contract; court affirmed denial of contract-based claims. |
| Punitive damages viability | Punitive damages warranted for breach of implied covenant. | No outrageous conduct or malice; insurer conduct not imputable. | No punitive damages permissible; contract-based punitive claim rejected. |
| Evidence of August 20 letter prejudiciality | Letter showed plan to ship to Wyoming; relevant to reasonableness. | Exclusion not prejudicial; jury awards support reasonableness. | Exclusion not reversible error; not prejudicial. |
| Lost income claim viability | Income loss due to repairs should be recoverable. | Evidence too speculative; profits not proven with certainty. | Lost profits not submitted to jury; not error. |
| Prejudgment interest rate | Higher, non-statutory rate should apply due to investment loss. | No written contract; statutory rate applies. | Statutory prejudgment interest rate applied; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess Constr. Co. v. Hancock, 514 P.2d 239 (Alaska 1973) (bailee duty; repairs not imposed on bailee in all cases)
- O.K. Lumber Co. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 759 P.2d 523 (Alaska 1988) (insurer conduct not actionable in tort by claimant against defendant)
- Tookalook Sales & Service v. McGahan, 846 P.2d 127 (Alaska 1993) (prejudgment interest when contract exists; higher rate not available without contract)
- State v. Hammer, 550 P.2d 820 (Alaska 1976) (guidance on damages and allowable awards)