Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. State, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce & Economic Development

disposed of this case. ultimately court LIFE only INSUR- City could be PRINCIPAL MUTUAL

BUC concludes that COMPANY, Appellant, ANCE upon time attorney awarded fees based Cross-Appellee, argu- This dispositive issues. spent on require do not ment is without merit. We attorney fees based the trial court award Alaska, INSUR- DIVISION OF STATE spent dispositive issues. upon the time ANCE, OF COM- DEPARTMENT attorney fees AND ECONOMIC DEVELOP- The trial court’s award MERCE MENT, Appellee, Cross-Appellant. it is mani- interfered with when will be festly Alaska Placer Co. v. unreasonable. S-2517, Nos. S-2518. (Alaska 1976). Lee, 553 P.2d Court Alaska. manifestly unreasonable conclude that it is $25,- City that the trial court awarded the Sept. attorney

000 in fees without documen- exclusively relied

tation. The trial court affidavit, conclusory City attorney’s $35,000

stating had that in excess of been Thus, defending suit.10 the issue

spent this to the trial attorney fees is remanded

court.

III. CONCLUSION foregoing, AFFIRM upon

Based original of BUC’s

the trial court’s dismissal tax refund. We

action REVERSE

the trial court’s dismissal of BUC’s claim April 1986 and RE-

for taxes since this issue to the trial court. We

MAND attorney fees for

REMAND the award of

redetermination consistent with documenta- supporting the number of hours

tion

claimed, and reconsideration of whether the prevailing party, light of our

City is the

partial reversal. attorney attorney City’s fees was made.

10. The furnished the trial one week after the award with documentation 1024 [subject to enumerat- in the state

located exceptions and ed deductions].... computed the rate of at tax ... (1) companies, per domestic for IV2 cent; (2) hospital medical service for per gross of their corporations, 6 cent paid; less claims premiums (3) companies other than domestic corpora- medical hospital service tions, per cent.3 3 1981,4 23, foreign 11 insur On October companies, appellant, filed ance but not constitutionality challenging suit Pollard, Rozell, B. John premium R. William differential tax. Susan State, Faulkner, Banfield, Holmes, v. Doogan, Hancock et al. & Ju- No. 1JU-81-1699 neau, Dist., Juneau, appellant, cross-appellee. Super., 1st Oct. Civ. 23, 1981). more insurance Five Bush, Gen., Jeffrey Atty. Asst. Grace W. companies plaintiffs as in 1982. were added Schaible, Gen., Juneau, Berg Atty. ap- states, brought in other Similar suits were pellee, cross-appellant. 26, 1985, and March the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Metro MATTHEWS, C.J., and Before Ward, politan Insurance Co. v. 470 WITZ, BURKE, Life RABINO COMPTON 869, 1676, 105 84 L.Ed.2d 751 U.S. S.Ct. MOORE, JJ. (1985) (Ward), challenge which involved a premium to Alabama’s differential tax law. OPINION legislature The Alaska amended AS 21.- WITZ, RABINO Justice. 09.210(b) legislative during the full next 1957, legislature the Alaska amended equalize applicable the tax session to rate impose premiums its tax on insurance and domestic insurers at 2.7 tax rate on insurers outside of Alas- based 1, (i.e., percent, January retroactive to (hereinafter insurers”) “foreign ka double 1, 1987). 118, 1, April for taxes due Ch. § imposed insurers Alaska-based 21, 1986, 14 July SLA 1986. On (hereinafter insurers”).2 “domestic1 Alas- companies insurance added as were premium ka’s differential tax remained Hancock suit. Other John plaintiffs repeal until effect from 1957 concerning filed cases were also the consti- repealed This codified in Alaska was 21.09.210(b), tutionality including of AS 21.09.210(b): Statute compa- insurance suit two nies. Northern Co. pay Each insurer ... shall a tax on the Life State, total direct income for the 1JU-86-786 Civ. Settlement ... property companies, insurance of or risks resident or reached with all 32 and the extensively law was 1. A "domestic" insurer defined as one formed revised in 120, 1, under the laws of the state of Alaska. 070(a). 21.90.- SLA § 1966. Ch. noted, 3. Unless otherwise all references to AS § 2.Ch. SLA as 42-1-14 § codified prior refer to the statute to its 1986 (Supp.1958). ACLA tax rates on Until amending. insurers were and domestic the same. Ch. SLA § codified exactly filed almost 4. This suit was five months (1949) (2 percent); ACLA § 42-1-14 ch. 1957) (3 after the Court’s decision in Western & percent). SLA There is no sub- § legislative history Equaliza- Southern Ins. Co. v. State Board stantive on the differential tax Life tion, provision, which was a floor amendment re- 451 U.S. S.Ct. quested adopted by (1981), Mr. K. Johnson and L.Ed.2d discussed infra. unanimous consent. 1957 House Journal 565. John Hancock and Northern question of whether was enti- cases retrospective relief. dismissed in 1986.5 tied to November appealed The state has 14, 1986, Principal On November Mutual finding court’s that AS 21.09.210 is uncon- Company (“Principal”), Life Insurance appealed stitutional. corporation Iowa licensed the Division court’s denial of refund. Alaska, of Insurance to do business filed request with the for a refund of Division A. AS IS UNCONSTITU- 1983, paid taxes under AS 21.09.210 in EQUAL TIONAL UNDER THE 1984, and 1985. The Princi- Division denied PROTECTION PROVISIONS OF pal’s request. Principal requested refund THE FEDERAL AND ALASKA denial, hearing before the Division on the CONSTITUTIONS. by as authorized AS 21.06.180. The Divi- sion, Law, through Department the We conclude that former of de- AS 21.09.-2 10(b)7 Principal’s request. February nied On violates the claus 1987, Principal added es of the Alaska and the federal con a claim for a refund both Principal’s argument, of stitutions. paid years taxes in the main taxable ending persuasive, which we find is that 1982. The Division AS 21.09.- 210(b) is request impos denied this refund as well. Princi- unconstitutional because it $95,606 higher pal requésts foreign es a tax on total refund of insurance com alleged panies overpaid compa taxes it for the than on domestic insurance tax nies, any legit 1980-1985.6 a discrimination which lacks purpose. imate state Principal appealed the Division’s refund court, superior agreed denial to the equal protection which Under federal 21.09.210(b)(3) Principal with analysis, “imposition that AS the of more onerous Ward, Citing unconstitutional. 470 foreign corpora U.S. taxes or other burdens 105 imposed S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d tions than those on domestic cor Metropolitan Insurance Co. v. Com- porations unless the discrimi [is forbidden] Life Insurance, Department missioner corpo nation between and domestic of (N.D.1985), superior 373 N.W.2d 399 the legit rations bears a rational relation to a 21.09.210(b)(3) court concluded Western & South purpose.” that AS vio- imate state equal protection provisions ern v.Co. State Board lated the Equalization, both the Alaska the federal constitu- 451 U.S. 101 S.Ct. refused, superior (1981) tions. The court how- 68 L.Ed.2d 530 (Western Southern). ever, grant Principal & refund. The What level of Commercial analysis court found the scrutiny subject such discrimination is Entry Byayuk, Fisheries Commission v. equal protection analysis under Alaska controlling P.2d 114 by 684 not been decided this court.8 In Although lenged retaliatory part 5. the state has refused to disclose the tax as of this settlement, monetary figures litigation. involved in the the retaliatory California’s survived a state has revealed that Southern, the settlement involves challenge constitutional in Western & companies. future tax credits to the supra, note 4 and discussed infra. Principal alleges 6. that this sum is the differ- above, actually 7. As discussed percent paid ence between the 3 21.09.210(b)(3), under AS (b)(3) declared subsection unconstitutional. percent and the 2 tax that The statute is unconstitutional because subsec- 21.09.210(b)(3) paid would have been had AS (b)(1) (b)(3) provide tions different not been in effect. would have 2 companies. rates for and domestic Sub- (Iowa’s rate) percent premium tax rather than (b)(2) provided section is not unconstitutional tax, percent retaliatory because Alaska’s 1½ domestic, interpreted to include as well statute, 21.09.270(a). AS this if the home Under foreign, hospital compa- and medical service imposes higher pre- state insurer interpretation nies. We believe this com- doing mium tax on insurers business in the ports statutory with the rules of construction. imposes home state than Alaska insurers, on its domestic imposes then Alaska state's Zobel, higher premium The state’s reliance on Williams v. tax rate on the insurer's (Alaska 1980), business for its assertion in Alaska. has not chal- P.2d 3)The protection tax differential increases case, equal the minimum level of Alaska, scrutiny in also denominated a ra- insurance in Alaska be- availability of test, than tional basis more fa- insurers are cause domestic by test mandated the federal rational basis state write and will miliar with & Southern.9 Western foreign com- coverage for risks which panies not insure. will Ward, Court considered differential tax stat- Alabama’s argu- by persuaded are not the state’s ute, -5 Ala.Code 27-4-4 & § accept legitimacy of ments. if we Even U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d is no what- purposes,10 these there evidence purposes held The Court that the two support the state’s soever in the record state, by promot- the statute advanced they contention that advanced ing formation new insur- domestic imposed 21.09.- rates differential tax encourag- companies in Alabama and ance 210.11 ing capital compa- investment argument per- The state’s first fails Alabama, nies in were not state present- suade us the state has not because “purely purposes, but rather were and com- any supporting claim that ed its evidence designed pletely discriminatory, only to fa- higher cost of domestic insurers have industry_” domestic 470 at vor U.S. foreign doing Alaska business in than do 1681, 878, L.Ed.2d 105 S.Ct. at 84 at 759. Moreover, even if insurers. such evidence The state denies that AS re- noticed, presented judicially or it is penalize foreign, “to or flects intent simply the doubtful that difference is insurers”, domestic, and reward advances its result of the insurer’s decision to locate purposes legit- three state believes It to home office in Alaska. is reasonable imate: foreign assume and domestic insurers that 1) The tax differential enables domestic operating pay in Alaska Alaska their insurers, higher burdened agents adjusters roughly equiv- and claims business, doing costs maintain commissions, alent salaries and and competitive equality with in- policyholders equivalent their make Alaska surers. (Payment numbers of claims. of claims is 2) The tax differential ensures a more business.) largest doing cost in market stable insurance Alaska be- indicating no state has introduced evidence cause insurers cannot leave domestic' and domestic insurers insure they perceive state if risks high. pools. different risk be too Alaska (Alaska (Alaska 1980) apply that Alaska’s standard of review is also the ra- 1261 will Williams, basis test In tional is inaccurate. more flexible and more standards disparate stated that taxation is protection scrutiny appropriate); “[f]reedom from equal where is federally protected right....” Brown, not a fundamental Assurance Co. v. 687 P.2d Alaska Pacific added). (emphasis explic- at 427 We did Id. not (Alaska 1984) (under 269-70 minimum lev itly in state Williams what standard of review review, el of be there must constitutional analysis. our was used in state relationship legitimate leg substantial between inapposite See id. at 427-29. Williams is also goals islative the ends to achieve and chosen because it involved discrimination tax rates goals). those residents, two of Alaska between classes Alaska non-Alaska residents. The between and coverage Making to Alas- insurance available only involving case differential rates other purpose. ka See residents is a state discussing protection analysis equal and Department Penn Mutual Insurance Co. v. inapposite. also Sisters Providence in Licensing Registration, Mich.App. and 162 Anchorage, Washington, Municipality Inc. v. 672 N.W.2d 1983) (Alaska (holding 672 P.2d n. 1 equip- that different for owned leased comparison, the state submitted in Ward is "rational bears a fair substan- ment ”document[ing] economic studies differences goal). tial relation” the statute’s classes of that are between the two insurers directly well-being relevant to the of Alabama’s Rickey, 550 P.2d 9. Isakson grounds, U.S. at S.Ct. at superseded citizens.” 470 on other Commercial J., (O’Connor, dissenting). Entry Apokedak, L.Ed.2d at 765 Fisheries Com’n v. 606 P.2d able, residents), expense substantial business but means chosen may significantly higher rationally in Alaska promoting be are not related to Moines, Iowa, than in Des Princi- purpose. where The classification scheme located, pal’s home office is is administra- residency. Although based it is not (“paperwork”).12 argument costs This tive required that close distinctions be drawn persuasive much less classifications, becomes when we making foreign/do- or substitute Hartford-based Aetna New mestic classification scheme made here Metropolitan Principal. York-based Life for opportunity no affords for a in- However, nothing preventing there is preference giv- surer to share in the tax contracting Alaska insurer from out the if en to domestic insurers it desires to paperwork bulk to a non-Alaska com- greatest offer insurance in the areas of pany setting up or an administrative center public despite profit po- need the lower expensive in a less state. tential. The classification scheme also permits a domestic insurer to obtain Contrary argument, to the state’s second preference over insurers why there is no reason domestic insurers even if the line of insurance offered is if they cannot leave the state find the risks a more lucrative Thus the market. clas- high; Alaska-organized to be too insurers sification is both under and over inclusive are free to obtain licenses to do business rationally promoting and not related to states, just other insurers are high to offer insurers free to seek licenses to do business Alas- malprac- loss ratio areas such as medical ka. tice, multiple peril, liquor farm owners Third, merely orga- because an insurer is liability, municipal liability, product nized in Alaska necessarily does not mean liability. that it is more familiar with the state than Penn Mutual Insurance Co. v. De- (who may operat- insurers have Life partment Licensing Registration, & longer ed in the periods state for much time).13 (Mich.App.1987). if N.W.2d 672-73 Even we assume that domestic Com’r., also are more familiar with Alaska’s See Met. insurers 373 N.W.2d at (holding premium insurance 406-08 environment than are in- North Dakota’s surers, tax, logically applicable foreign insurers, does not follow that to un- coverage constitutional). domestic insurers will write foreign companies risks that in- will not The state’s reliance on Western & South- Indeed, alleged sure. a domestic insurer’s ern, in which the Court of the greater familiarity may with the state upheld constitutionality United the States underwriting cause it to avoid Alaska risks retaliatory of California’s tax14 on com- do underwriters underwrite. grounds, equal protection merce clause and Nothing in Alaska’s insurance com- laws misplaced. retaliatory A tax does not pels domestic insurers to risks underwrite clause, violate the federal required insurers are not to held, rationally the Court it is de- because underwrite. signed to other states from enact- “deter[ ] Michigan Appeals The Court of reached ing taxes”, discriminatory or excessive finding Michigan’s the same conclusion thereby promoting the domestic insurance differential tax statute unconstitutional: industry by lowering barriers interstate Ward, that, 668-74, pur- hold

We unlike the business. 451 U.S. at S.Ct. at 2083-86, pose advanced the state is 68 L.Ed.2d at 531-35. Alaska’s (i.e., tax, making coverages premium the other avail- differential argument larg- premium 12. This assumes that labor is the the tax for five from the date of component organization. est of administrative costs and that higher Alaska’s cost of labor than Des Moines'. retaliatory supra 14.Alaska’s tax is discussed note 6. 21.09.210(c) exempts 13. Alaska Statute a domes- (but foreign) payment tic not a insurer from un- Department of Revenue paid the encourage states hand, other does not treasury deposited in the protest and der they impose on premiums lower the rate judgment (1) taxpayer recovers if the matter how low For no Alaska insurers. Department of Revenue against the foreign insurer’s imposed by the rate the (2) tax, in the ab- or return of state, requires a 21.09.210 home AS to the it is obvious judgment, sence paid rate pay insurer to twice taxpay- that the Department of Revenue retaliatory Unlike a by Alaska insurers. legal if judgment er would obtain tax, provide for the does not AS 21.09.210 taxpay- by the ceedings prosecuted foreign business taxes on reduction er. of taxes by their states upon the reduction (b) of Administration Department Compare, imposed on Alaska businesses. of an over- the amount shall refund supra 21.09.270, in note 6. discussed AS Department if taxpayer payment that AS 21.09.- therefore conclude Revenue, account on audit of the equal 210(b) under is unconstitutional that a remittance question, determines Federal and of both the protection clauses due. taxpayer exceeds the amount Alaska Constitutions.15 [ejntitled to a Principal argues that it “is [rjefund [ejxcess [tjaxes [pjaid ...” un- A PRINCIPAL HAVE DOES B. for the 1980-1985 der AS A OF TAXES RIGHT TO REFUND paid under years. These taxes were not 21.09.210(b)? PAID UNDER protest. governs wheth- Statute 43.15.010 in- 43.15.01017 has been Alaska Statute may a refund of taxes party er a obtain preclude terpreted in a manner that would state.16 This statute allows paid to the (1) Principal did because relief to over- recovery of both inadvertent protest, under pay taxes protest: payments, and taxes and, (2) be- required subsection (a), (a) Department of Administration implicit in is the con- cause subsection (b) shall, valid, approval attorney of the imposed with the cept the tax Revenue, Department taxpayer, by the terms of the tax general and the erroneously payment, time of of a tax statute at the refund to a the amount 7—1(b) and reco- Section [amended fails the federal ration- test. 15. Since AS 48— test, 43.15.010(b) provides fortiori, satisfy for return ] Alas- fied as AS al basis a it does require analysis. overpayments, and does not even a ka’s law, no protest, alone duress. At common let recovery either. was allowed in this situation remedy provides a for 16. Because AS 43.15.010 Therefore, appear refunds, that two new it would reject the those who seek view created, and, recovery Entry means of have been parties that Commercial Fisheries both action, requiring pro- since the common law Byayuk, Commission v. 684 P.2d 114 duress, test, wrongful determining is not purposes assessment is relevant for mentioned, apparent statutory it is is entitled to a refund in this whether already to the one forms are in addition case. seem that existence. It would statutes liberalize recoveries cre- Fisheries, were intended to American Inc. v. Mulla 17. In Pacific formerly ating rights 729, 734, where none existed. ney, F.Supp. may 1952) exclusive as to the (D.Alaska The statutes well be a District Court for the Territo them, but, they since do ry a refund of an situations covered of Alaska denied a claim for situation, fishing unconstitutionally duress an action based collected nonresident not cover the 48-7-1, ACLA, which was license fee under duress will still lie. § SLA though § recodified as AS 43.15.010. Ch. lie outside Even an action will still Judge part: statutes, requisites There Folta wrote in are not fulfilled its Payment allegations in the third count. law, an action in At common a had protest, under duress and an invalid assess- assumpsit whenever taxes were the nature of alleged. coercion, Since it is insufficient ment are not they paid under duress and and 48-7-l(a) unnecessary grounds, it is to deter- wrongfully on these assessed. Section party 43.15.010(a) plaintiff is the real mine whether or not and recodified as AS ] [amended part claim which as to that of the provides under in interest for a refund of taxes law, wages. protest. from the fishermen's At common no such refund was deducted (Emphasis original.) be secured on basis of a mere could Principal’s request following remitted too much. We hold that in the man- only will be entitled to a refund ner: (a), only if subsection it is determined you may ... Please be advised that con- protest require-

that the state waived the 86-19, sider Order No. dated November Principal’s ment in case. 25, 1986, appeal pur- as a final order for Examination of the record shows the fol- poses. Because the issues this case lowing regard history to the of this nature, appear legal purely to be litigation. holding purpose there would little be any hearing. approach A similar Fisk,

On Jed Assist- November challenging been taken other cases Principal’s corporate ant Director of premium they division wrote to the Director of Divi- exist- laws sion of Insurance. This letter reads in prior ed to 1986.

part: A your review state’s administrative long holding There is a line of case law provisions provide guidance fails when court declares a tax or li- prescribed filing claims format invalid, ruling given cense fee premium taxes. The for-

for refunds óf prospective only, effect in order to avoid mat of the enclosed Claims for Refunds imposing undue administrative or finan- years 1983,1984, and 1985 in the [for cial public burdens on the and the tax- $62,739] provides amount of the neces- (Citations omitted.) payers. sary information to determine propriety amount and of the Claim. We cases, however, recognized A few have hereby request you indicate on the exception general to the rule of no page enclosed if the format is NOT ac- cases, retroactive relief. In these ceptable or will NOT constitute a valid rule has been that the court will utilize (Emphasis Claim Refund. fur- nished.) equitable powers give ruling its effect, only limited retroactive as to the On November the Director of parties litigation, in the back to the Division of Insurance sent to Jed Fisk brought. the time that suit was Rio 86-19 Order No. which reads as follows: Algom Corp. County, Juan San your pre- We have reviewed claim for a (Utah 1984). your P.2d Since mium tax refund for the calendar company paid taxes with and 1985. These requests out until formal refund properly paid provi- taxes were under the November we would contend it (AS 21). sions of Alaska Insurance Laws has no claim ref your Therefore claim is denied. furnished.) (Emphasis und.18 Subsequent receipt to the of Order No. appeal Given the record in this we have 86-19, Principal In- wrote the Director of appropriate dispo- concluded that the most hearing pursuant “a surance to sition of the refund issue is to remand the 21.06.180of the Alaska Insurance AS Code the in matter to court order to regarding request pre- our for a refund of permit the such further conduct paid years ending mium taxes for the De- 31, 1983, 31, 1984, proceedings necessary as it deems to re- and cember December following responded 1985.” The state solve the issues: December By years. Subsequent response parties the and order to the state’s the 87-19, stipulated that March 1987 the Division of No. dated Principal advised that: provide adequate of time will extension [T]his your a We have reveiwed claim for Principal for time for Mutual to file a claim 1980, 1981, years for the calendar tax refund for refund with the Division of Insurance premiums prop- taxes were years and 1982. These premiums taxes for additional erly paid provisions of Alaska In- under the the Division to act on refund claim. Therefore, (AS 21). 27, 1987, your claim February filed surance Laws Thereafter $37,862.00 a refund claim in the amount of is denied. govern- by state method which expeditious requirement (1). the Did the state waive necessary revenues. can obtain protest ment 43.15.010(a) of AS 43.- by AS called for requirement protest the taxes at payments the It 15.010(a) purposes. several serves made for the payments times of the payment that the proof as serves involuntarily made question in that the (2). it is held In the event 1985? authority that taxing notice to the provides payments requirement the state waived illegal as well to be the tax is claimed Princi- protest, and that the taxes under taxpayer’s assertion. of the the basis judgment for a refund entitled to a pal is taxes, applicable the questioned then the to be point remains additional One Principal’s governing period limitations Fisheries, made. State Wakefield determined.19 for refunds should be claims this court Inc., 495 P.2d 166 the Concerning question of whether held: 43.15.- provision of AS state waived to recov- taxpayer is limited [not] [T]he 010(a) requires that taxes must be which according to AS overpayments ery of a in order to obtain protest long law has The common 43.15.010. refund, appropriate to make consider it assumpsit recognized a cause of action following observations. overpayments of taxes. Be- recover is that if general rule at common law statutory do not ex- remedies cause voluntarily paid by the illegal an tax is reme- supersede the common-law plicitly compulsion it cannot be taxpayer without dies, supplement, they intended as a action at law.20 There recovered back an assumpsit remedy in and the earlier authority holding protest that the case still available. itself, payment renders the involun- Although question whether the we now authority tary.21 Accordingly, there is also remedy a cause of action law common voluntarily paid can- that taxes which holds enactment of AS assumpsit survived the pro- there was no not be recovered where 43.15.010, to overrule we take this occasion payment.22 at the time of test made holds that portion of which Wakefield requirement is no jurisdictions statute there Some have payment of the tax at formally protest recovery illegal taxes vided for payment in time of order subse- payment of the taxes actions at law where maintain a common law action protest.23 leg- quently The Alaska was made under refund. The burden of remedy by assumpsit for a tax provided for such a islature protest at the 43.15.010(a). requiring taxpayer to file a enacting It is clear that AS 43.15.010(a) payment of the tax is at most enactment in der- time of is a valid require- regarding minimal. On the otherhand ogation of the common law rule important protest serves the voluntary payment purpose of taxes. The ment government 43.15.010(a) providing state recover- function of of AS is to “liberalize illegality, claimed tax creating rights formerly none with notice of the ies where Fisheries, support of the grounds advanced claimed Am. Inc. v. existed.” Pacific illegality, oppor- and affords the state the F.Supp. Mullaney, 13 Alaska (D.Alaska 1952), budget appropriations, or provide tunity to fashion City Although Co. v. the issue at this 21. Title Guarantee & Trust New we do not decide York, (1942), N.Y.S.2d 715 appears provides 265 A.D. that AS 43.05.275 time it N.E.2d 301 three-year period 290 N.Y. for claims made limitations affirmed Statute under AS 43.15.010. Alaska 43.05.- 275(a)(1) requires County that a file a refund 22. Selectmen Hull v. Commissioners (A) years Mass.App.Ct. Plymouth County, ‘before the later of three from claim of N.E.2d 787 filed; (B) (1981). the return was or two the time paid.” the tax was from the time Detroit, (6th Helmsley City v. 320 F.2d 476 23. State, Cir.1963); Tully, Co. v. National State Bank Boulder v. North Pier Terminal (Ill.1976). Ill.2d 343 N.E.2d 507 Colo. 396 P.2d 948 mag- taking expenditures, into account CLARK, illegality. Rodney the claimed

nitude of d/b/a Inc., significant Appellant, Pyrotechnics, think these are considerations require- the retention of the which warrant v. protest. ment of a INC., ANCHORAGE, GREATER part, REVERSED AFFIRMED Co., Nova Terra part, further and REMANDED for Ltd., Appellees. ceedings opinion. consistent with this

No. S-2272. COMPTON, J., dissents. of Alaska. Court Justice, COMPTON, dissenting Sept. 29, part. disagree this disposition

I with opinion. II

case mandated Section appro-

The court concludes that “the most

priate is to disposition of the refund issue matter to court to

remand the proceedings such further

conduct following necessary to

deems resolve issues,” I are not issues which observe the, arguments

raised in either the briefs or parties. In this re- order to reach 43.15.010(a),

sult, interprets the court cites, party gratui-

statute neither and then portion

tously overrules a State Fisheries, Inc., 495 P.2d 166 Wakefield

(Alaska 1972), party case cites. neither credit, attempt

To the court’s it does particular result justify

judicial “plain doctrine such as the error

doctrine,” re- but that does not make the palatable. my

sult view the proceeds in re-

manner which just

solving this case is as flawed as it was Inc., Anchorage, v. Greater Clark Justice, (Alaska 1989) (Compton,

P.2d 1031

dissenting). Surely it cannot be said appears “it mis- this record an obvious high made

take has been which creates injustice has resulted.”

likelihood Clark, at dissent

Case Details

Case Name: Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. State, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce & Economic Development

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 29, 1989

Citation: 780 P.2d 1023

Docket Number: S-2517, S-2518

Court Abbreviation: Alaska