Zamarello v. Reges, 321 P.3d 387

Zamarello owned a mobile home park; ADEC remediation forecasts prompted litigation against insurers for funds.
Reges drafted a July 11, 2000 contingent hourly fee that may allow recovery of costs/fees by the attorney if Zamarello loses.
An October 3, 2000 signed, shortened contingency fee did not include costs/fee liability language; dispute over draft origin.
In February 2001, Zamarello and Neeser amended the option agreement, setting a structure for future recoveries and shared costs.
In July 2004, a modification shifted fee/cost mechanics; August 2004 Final Agreement stated Zamarello would owe nothing more and future work would be charged to Neeser; post-2004 settlements largely funded Reges’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Final Agreement ended the contingency fee.	Zamarello; the Final Agreement unambiguously ended fees.	Reges; extrinsic evidence supports continued fee collection from recoveries.	Evidence supported the jury; not prejudicial to deny JNOV/new trial.
Whether Zamarello is entitled to half of post-July 2004 recoveries.	Zamarello contends 2004 modification requires Reges to take from Neeser’s share.	Reges; fees from gross recoveries were proper per modified agreement and subsequent practices.	Jury had evidentiary basis; Court affirms denial of post-July 2004 recovery share claim.
Whether Reges must reimburse Kemper fee under professional conduct/fee rules.	Zamarello claims insufficient warning about adverse costs.	Reges properly warned; fees were paid from recoveries.	No error; denial of new trial/JNOV regarding Kemper fee affirmed.
Whether the $150,000 bonus was improper as consideration or misrepresentation.	Bonus was consideration for release from fees or misrepresented to continue fees.	Bonus earned for Denali Fuel settlement work, not for a release; no misrepresentation.	Evidence supported jury finding; bonus reimbursable only if the theory applied.

Hogg v. Raven Contractors, Inc., 134 P.3d 349 (Alaska 2006) (prejudicial-error standard for jury instructions; harmless where theory supported by evidence)
Glamann v. Kirk, 29 P.3d 255 (Alaska 2001) (ambiguous contract interpretation; drafter considerations)
Grant v. Stoyer, 10 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2000) (ambiguity and contract interpretation with extrinsic evidence)
Weiner v. Burr, Pease & Kurtz, P.C., 221 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2009) (attorney fee disclosures; integration and parol evidence issues)
Miller v. Handle Constr. Co., 255 P.3d 984 (Alaska 2011) (contract interpretation and evidentiary basis for interpretations)