(Aurora From ISS Image Courtesy of Captain Kelly & NASA)
In a decision that has just been published, Precision Cranes, Inc. v. Tester Drilling Serv's, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-00019-JMK, 2020 WL 13538683 (D. Alaska Nov. 18, 2020), the plaintiff Precision was allowed to amend its complaint against two defendant insurance carriers that issued payment bonds on a project in the Arctic. Precision had already sued on what is generically known as a UDAP (Unfair & Deceptive Practices) statutory claim, in this case, specifically under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“UTPCPA”). Now Precision requested leave to add a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, apparently at common law.
The District Court granted Precision's motion for leave to amend its complaint even though the motion came late and over the objections of the defendant carriers. Precision, 2020 WL 13538683, at *3. This case involved Alaska substantive law, which the federal Court clearly read as allowing both a UDAP action and a bad faith action based on the same facts, even though the two causes of action are similar but distinct on the law.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.