CIVIL PROCEDURE
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Grace Koh
In Williams v. Strong, No. S-18528, 2024 WL 4097340 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that the complainant’s breach of contract claim was untimely because the three-year statute of limitations began to run when he was placed on inquiry notice of defects in his neighbors’ reconstruction of their driveway. (Id. at 4). In August 2010, Strong sued his neighbors, the Williamses, alleging that a substandard driveway on their property caused flooding on his property. (Id. at 1). The parties then negotiated an agreement to resolve the litigation, in which the Williamses agreed to pay $7,500 and upgrade his driveway in accordance with a list of specifications by June 30, 2012. (Id.). In return, Strong released the Williamses from “all claims and causes of action asserted or which could have been asserted against [them].” (Id.). On June 7, 2012, the Williamses completed the upgrade of their driveway, and Strong informed them that he was “satisfied”—though later evidence showed that Strong was aware that a culvert had been installed incorrectly at this point. (Id. at 2–3). Three years later, on July 21, 2015, Strong filed a new lawsuit claiming that he continued to experience flooding due to the Williamses’ driveway, and he demanded both compensatory and punitive damages for a breach of contract. (Id.). While the superior court initially determined that Strong had filed his claim within the three-year statute of limitations that applies to breach of contract claims, the supreme court reversed this decision. (Id. at 4). The superior court seemed to determine that Strong required actual notice of the harm before his claims could accrue under the statute of limitations. In contrast, the supreme court reasoned that Strong was on inquiry notice either on June 7, 2012, when he was purportedly aware that the driveway had been installed incorrectly, or by July 13, 2012, when he incurred excessive septic pumping costs. (Id. at 3, 5). Here, the supreme court held that the statute of limitations began with the date of inquiry notice. (Id. at 6). As both dates of inquiry notice would be more than three years prior to Strong’s filing of his 2015 complaint, the supreme court held that the superior court erred when it determined that Strong’s complaint was timely. (Id. at 5).
