Miller v. State, Department of Environmental Conservation
353 P.3d 346
Alaska2015Background
- In 1996 the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation approved Whiting Harbor as suitable for shellfish farming; in 2000 Grant Miller obtained a permit to operate an oyster farm there.
- In 2009 dozens fell ill after eating Miller’s oysters; Miller shut down the farm and sued the Department in 2011.
- Miller alleged the Department negligently conducted suitability studies, "held out" the site as approved for oyster farming, and that he reasonably relied on that assurance, causing his farm’s failure.
- Miller later amended to add his LLC and alleged the Department knew of an invasive tunicate when issuing the permit.
- The Department moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was negligent misrepresentation and barred by the state’s sovereign immunity statute (AS 09.50.250(3)). The superior court granted summary judgment for the Department.
- On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed, holding Miller’s pleaded claim was negligent misrepresentation (immunized), not an independent negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller pleaded an actionable negligence claim separate from negligent misrepresentation | Miller argued his affidavit showed ongoing inspections, permit-enforcement failures, and regulatory missteps creating an independent negligence-based public-health risk | Department argued Miller’s complaint alleged only misrepresentation (false assurance of site suitability), which is barred by sovereign immunity | Court held Miller’s complaint alleged negligent misrepresentation only; sovereign immunity bars the claim and summary judgment was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Willard v. Khotol Servs. Corp., 171 P.3d 108 (Alaska 2007) (articulating negligent misrepresentation elements)
- Bush v. Elkins, 342 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2015) (standard of review for legal questions)
- ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc., 322 P.3d 114 (Alaska 2014) (de novo review guidance)
- Block v. Neal, 460 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1983) (distinguishing misrepresentation exception where supervisory negligence caused independent harm)
- National Carriers, Inc. v. United States, 755 F.2d 675 (8th Cir.) (1985) (inspector’s negligent operational acts separate from misrepresentations)
- Guild v. United States, 685 F.2d 324 (9th Cir.) (1982) (operational negligent design distinct from collateral misinformation)