In Kimp v. Fire Lake Plaza II, LLC, 484 P.3d 80 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that, barring ambiguity, the language of the lease controls when determining breach of lease claims, and that not paying rent is not the type of economic loss required for a promissory estoppel claim. (Id. at 88–90.). Fire Lake Plaza II, LLC (Fire Lake) and Quake! Brewing Company, LLC (Quake) entered into a 66-month lease, which included a provision holding Kimp personally liable if Quake violated the lease. (Id. at 84). The lease included a rent-free access period, but after that period expired Quake continued to not pay any rent and there was a dispute as to whether there was an oral agreement to extend the rent-free access period. (Id. at 83–85). A Fire Lake representative changed the locks on the property and sent Kimp a notice of default. (Id.). On appeal, Kimp argued that the superior court’s decision to grant Fire Lake’s motion for summary judgement, deny his motion for summary judgement, and award Fire Lake damages was improper. (Id. at 84–86). The court looked to the language of the lease and found that there was no ambiguity in the provision stating that failure to pay the rent was grounds for immediate default, so Fire Lake acted appropriately by not providing time to cure the default. (Id. at 88). The court also found that the lease clearly allowed Fire Lake to enter without notice and relet the unit as one of the possible remedies for a default of the lease. (Id. at 90). Finally, the court held that in order for Kimp to succeed on his promissory estoppel claim concerning the rent abatement period, he had to show “a reasonably foreseeable, substantial change in position” and, since his failure to pay rent was a positive financial gain for him, it did not qualify as such a change. (Id. at 88–89). The supreme court affirmed the decision below, holding that barring ambiguity, the language of the lease controls when determining breach of lease claims, and that not paying rent is not the type of economic loss required for a promissory estoppel claim. (Id. at 93, 88–90).