Legal Opinion · Dissent

Burnett v. Government Employee Insurance Company

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 2017No. 7149 S-15715Published

1DissentMaassen, Justice

I dissent. While I agree with the court’s observation that a liability insurer can assume a “new and independent” duty to a third party claimant while adjusting a claim, as we recognized in O.K. Lumber v. Providence Washington Insurance Co.,1 there is nothing in this case on which to find that such a duty was ever assumed. The plaintiffs allegations, taken as true, simply show an insurer acting—reasonably or otherwise—in the course of its contractual duty to minimize its insured’s exposure to liability. Allowing the possibility of a “new and independent” duty on these facts expands the law in…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Continental Insurance Co. v. Bayless & Roberts, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980
  2. O.K. Lumber Co. v. Providence Washington Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Jackson v. American Equity Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Hamilton v. BlackmanAlaska Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Hurn Ex Rel. D.H. v. GreenwayAlaska Supreme Court · 2013

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API