Tundra Mountain Holdings, LLC v. Markel Insurance Company

WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TUNDRA MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, )
) No. 4:20-cv -0023-HRH
Defendant. )
_______________________________________)
O R D E R
Motion for Punitive Damages Information1
Plaintiff moves for an order requiring defendant to bring AS 09.17.020(c)(3) and
(c)(6) punitive damages information to the trial of this case. The motion is opposed.2
Plaintiff has replied.3 Oral argument has not been requested and is not deemed necessary.
In this diversity jurisdiction case, AS 09.17.020 applies with respect to the discov-
ery of evidence relevant to the amount of punitive damages. Section -020(e) provides that
such discovery may not be undertaken until “after the fact finder has determined that an
award of punitive damages is allowed under (a) and (b) of this section.” However, the
court has discretion to:
1Docket No. 98.
2Docket No. 102.
3Docket No. 105.
Order – Motion for Punitive Damages Information - 1 -
Case 4:20-cv-00023-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 3

issue orders as necessary, including directing the parties to
have the information relevant to the amount of punitive dam-
ages to be determined under (c)(3) or (6) of this section avail-
able for production immediately at the close of the initial trial
in order to minimize the delay between the initial trial and the
separate proceeding to determine the amount of punitive
damages.
AS 09.17.020(e).
Defendant has not advanced any persuasive reason why the court should not enter
an order appropriate to this case based upon AS 09.17.020(e). Defendant does object to
the entry of such an order “without temporal and geographic limitations[.]”4 In this
regard, and in connection with the court’s ruling on a motion for a protective order,5 the
court limited plaintiff’s discovery temporally “to the period of 2015-2020” and to “Alaska
claims.”6 The court concluded that such limitation was necessary for purposes of confin-
ing discovery to that proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The
court applies that rule for purposes of this motion to produce punitive damages informa-
tion.
Defendant’s alleged bad faith processing of plaintiff’s property damages claim in
this case is an issue which could lead to an award of punitive damages if plaintiff estab-
lishes by clear and convincing evidence that defendant engaged in outrageous or reckless
conduct, AS 09.17.020(b), during a period of time relevant to the placement and admini-
stration of the insurance policy issued by defendant to plaintiff. Thus the defendant is
subject to producing evidence relevant to any financial gain which defendant obtained or
4Docket No. 102 at 2.
5Docket No. 92.
6Id. at 6.
Order – Motion for Punitive Damages Information - 2 -
Case 4:20-cv-00023-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 3

expected to gain from commercial building insurance policies issued in Alaska during
2015 through 2020, and defendant’s financial condition during 2015 through 2020.
AS 09.17.020(c)(3) and (c)(6).
Conclusion
Subject to defendant’s right to choose not to present any financial evidence, even if
the fact-finder determines that punitive damages are allowed in this case, Pluid v. B.K.,
984 P.3d 981, 986 (Alaska 1997), plaintiff’s motion requiring defendant to bring financial
gain and financial condition evidence to the trial of this case is granted. Defendant shall
have available for production after the initial trial in this case financial gain information
as regards the sale of commercial building insurance policies in Alaska and defendant’s
financial condition in the period 2015-2020 if punitive damages are allowed by the fact-
finder .
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 13th day of June, 2023.
/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge
Order – Motion for Punitive Damages Information - 3 -
Case 4:20-cv-00023-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/13/23 Page 3 of 3