- 13 -
Of the six counts, five sought damages that directly addressed
Mr. Norton’s losses through tort type claims and remedies. These
counts (i.e., trespass to chattels, conversion, negligence,
punitive damages, and deprivation of civil rights–-due process) are
traditionally recognized as torts under Alaskan law and each
provides remedies in the form of an action for compensatory
damages. The sixth count, however, sought a declaratory judgment
regarding Mr. Norton’s fishing rights. Under Alaska law, a
declaratory judgment determines a party’s legal rights and
relationships and does not provide an independent action for
damages. See Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Red Dodge Aviation, Inc.,
475 P.2d 229, 232 (Alaska 1970). Accordingly, only five counts of
the complaint state claims having tort or tort type
characteristics.
The release agreement provided for $45,000 plus an arrangement
whereby the State of Alaska would address Mr. Norton’s disputed
fishing rights. The similarity between the nature of the relief
sought in the complaint and the relief afforded in the release
agreement leads us to conclude that the provision in regard to
fishing rights was made in settlement of the claim for declaratory
judgment, and that the $45,000 was allocated to the remaining five
counts. Consequently, we agree with the Nortons that the
settlement proceeds arose from tort or tort type claims.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011