Legal Opinion
Kaiser v. Umialik Insurance
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided March 11, 2005No. S-11088PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FABE, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this bad faith action against insurers, the pro se plaintiff filed his complaint at least a year after the statute of limitations had run. He appeals the dismissal of his claim, arguing that his untimeliness should be excused. He argues both that the defendants should be estopped from relying on the statute of limitations and that the statute should be tolled. The estoppel argument is raised for the first time on appeal, and the plaintiff does not meet the requirements for tolling. We therefore affirm the superior court’s order dismissing his claim.
II.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Hanger v. AbbottSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Osbourne v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Adkins v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980
- MacHules v. Department of Admin.Supreme Court of Florida · 1988
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2005
- Richardson v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
- Blake J. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services Philip Kaufman John Does 1-10 and Alexa J.Alaska Supreme Court · 2024
- Larson v. State, Department of CorrectionsAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
- Brannon v. Continental Casualty Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 2006
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.