354 P.3d 1073
Alaska2015Background
- Ryan Friesen and Oakly Enterprises owned adjacent properties where a leased 1995 Peterson wood chipper (leased to Corey Whitney by NPI, LLC) leaked diesel, causing contamination and regulatory notices.
- Whitney abandoned some leased equipment (including the chipper) on Friesen/Oakly land; NPI recovered the chipper more than a year later.
- Friesen and Oakly sued NPI and Whitney under AS 46.03.822 (Alaska’s CERCLA analogue) for strict liability for the release; Whitney defaulted.
- An eight-day jury trial found NPI caused the spill on Friesen’s property, awarded remediation damages ($38,437) and mitigation/removal expenses (reduced to $10,787), and found Friesen had avoidable-consequences reducing recoverable damages.
- Post-trial the superior court granted NPI’s motion under AS 46.03.822(j) to equitably allocate (contribute) the full damages among Whitney, Friesen, and NPI, treating Whitney’s share as an orphan share and allocating most costs to Friesen; it also excluded a Port MacKenzie environmental report and awarded NPI attorney’s fees against Oakly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury’s avoidable-consequences finding constituted apportionment under AS 46.03.822(i) | Friesen: jury’s finding that he reasonably could have avoided some damages effectuated apportionment, so contribution under .822(j) was unnecessary | NPI: jury’s avoidable-consequences finding reduced plaintiff’s recoverable damages but did not satisfy statutory divisibility/apportionment prerequisites | Court: The avoidable-consequences finding was not an apportionment under .822(i); apportionment requires proof of divisibility and a reasonable basis, so contribution under .822(j) was proper |
| Whether the superior court properly recast the direct claim as a contribution claim and equitably allocated damages under AS 46.03.822(j) | Friesen: equitable allocation was improper because the jury already addressed mitigation/avoidance | NPI: contribution permits equitable allocation among jointly and severally liable parties after trial | Court: Recasting was proper; court may apply equitable factors (e.g., Gore factors) post-trial and allocate mitigation costs under .822(j) |
| Admissibility of a consultant’s environmental report about NPI’s Port MacKenzie property | Oakly: report showed NPI’s corporate culture/routine pollution and negated accident/mistake defense (Rule 404/406) | NPI: report was propensity evidence, remote in time/location, and would be prejudicial/confusing | Court: Exclusion affirmed — evidence was improper propensity evidence, did not qualify as habit/routine practice, and its prejudicial/confusing effect outweighed probative value |
| Award of attorney’s fees to NPI against Oakly | Oakly: fees were disproportionate to Oakly’s fees and the amount in controversy and should be reduced | NPI: fees reflect complex litigation, summary judgment, eight-day trial, and post-trial proceedings; trial court reviewed billing and exercised discretion | Court: Fee award affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in its reductions and allocation and was not required to reduce fees merely because they exceeded amount in controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Tinker, 332 P.3d 21 (Alaska 2014) (discussing AS 46.03.822 as Alaska’s CERCLA analog)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (U.S. 2009) (apportionment requires reasonable basis to determine each cause’s contribution to a single harm)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 21 P.3d 344 (Alaska 2001) (recognizing Alaska’s hazardous-substances statutes and private causes of action/contribution)
- Vinson v. Hamilton, 854 P.2d 733 (Alaska 1993) (equitable allocation and court’s authority to make equitable findings)
- Kodiak Island Borough v. Exxon Corp., 991 P.2d 757 (Alaska 1999) (broad view of recoverable damages under hazardous-substances statutes)