Madonna v. Tamarack Air, Ltd.

[CONTRACT LAW]

In Madonna v. Tamarack Air, Ltd.,[1] the supreme court held that an airplane maintenance company does not have a contractual duty to repair a plane that was damaged on its airfield after completion of a routine maintenance inspection.[2] Madonna brought his airplane to Tamarack Air, Ltd. (“Tamarack”) for a routine inspection, after which Tamarack damaged the plane while it sat on the company’s airfield.[3] Offering to repair the plane, Tamarack estimated the costs with Madonna, who rejected their offer in favor of personally arranging the repairs.[4] On appeal, Madonna challenged the lower court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing his claim that Tamarack had a contractual obligation to repair the damage it caused.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that since Madonna had brought his plane to Tamarack for maintenance, it only had a contractual duty to fix problems arising during the inspection.[6] The inspection had been completed before the damaged occurred, so no such obligation to repair that damage existed.[7] Furthermore, having rejected Tamarack’s repair offer, Madonna could not reasonably argue it had breached a duty to repair, unless he also conceded that Tamarack had to continually submit repair plans until he was satisfied, which would be an unenforceable contractual duty because of its indefinite and uncertain terms.[8] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that an airplane maintenance company does not have a contractual duty to repair an airplane that was damaged on its airfield after completion of a routine maintenance inspection.[9]

 



[1] 298 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 879.

[3] Id. at 877.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 879.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 879–80.

[9] Id. at 879.

Madonna v. Tamarack Air, Ltd.

[CONTRACT LAW]

In Madonna v. Tamarack Air, Ltd.,[1] the supreme court held that an airplane maintenance company does not have a contractual duty to repair a plane that was damaged on its airfield after completion of a routine maintenance inspection.[2] Madonna brought his airplane to Tamarack Air, Ltd. (“Tamarack”) for a routine inspection, after which Tamarack damaged the plane while it sat on the company’s airfield.[3] Offering to repair the plane, Tamarack estimated the costs with Madonna, who rejected their offer in favor of personally arranging the repairs.[4] On appeal, Madonna challenged the lower court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing his claim that Tamarack had a contractual obligation to repair the damage it caused.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that since Madonna had brought his plane to Tamarack for maintenance, it only had a contractual duty to fix problems arising during the inspection.[6] The inspection had been completed before the damaged occurred, so no such obligation to repair that damage existed.[7] Furthermore, having rejected Tamarack’s repair offer, Madonna could not reasonably argue it had breached a duty to repair, unless he also conceded that Tamarack had to continually submit repair plans until he was satisfied, which would be an unenforceable contractual duty because of its indefinite and uncertain terms.[8] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that an airplane maintenance company does not have a contractual duty to repair an airplane that was damaged on its airfield after completion of a routine maintenance inspection.[9]

 



[1] 298 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 879.

[3] Id. at 877.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 879.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 879–80.

[9] Id. at 879.