BUSINESS LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Lily Skopp
In Johnson v. Albin Carlson & Co., 569 P.3d 1178 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska determined the trial court abused its discretion by preventing a subcontractor from pursuing certain claims. (Id. at 1184). The lower court’s decision was based on limited discovery documentation without first considering less severe sanctions. (Id.). Morris Johnson’s construction company performed additional work on a time and materials basis for general contractor Albin Carlson & Co. (PAC) on a remote bridge in Alaska. (Id. at 1185). Disputes arose about final payments and documentation. (Id. at 1187, 1193). The superior court partially excluded Johnson’s claims due to incomplete disclosures and awarded only limited damages following a bench trial. (Id. at 1188). According to Alaska Civil Rules, claim-ending sanctions should only be applied in extreme cases— and after exploring alternative options. (Id. at 1191). On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that excluding entire claims without first considering lesser discovery sanctions was an abuse of discretion. (Id.). The Court further specified that the extra-work claim was not a total-cost claim but approved the trial judge’s use of the jury-verdict method to estimate damages from the available evidence. (Id. at 1194). Ultimately, the Court vacated the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party and directed the lower court to recalculate certain damages, as well as reassess fees and interest in accordance with its ruling. (Id. at 1200–01).
