Opinion ID: 2633561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: We Decline To Affirm on Alternative Grounds.

Text: Continental argues that, regardless of the limitations issue, we should affirm the superior court's decision because Continental had no duty to defend Pfleiger. [44] It claims that Continental's policy excluded coverage for any transaction in which Pfleiger was an investor or had a financial interest and that it is undisputed that Pfleiger was an investor in the JROC deal. Continental had also moved for summary judgment based on unclean hands and for partial summary judgment on damages. The superior court stated that, having resolved the case on the statute of limitations issue, it was not reaching the many other issues presented by the parties. We decline to affirm the judgment on the basis of any issue the superior court did not reach. Continental's alternative grounds for summary judgment potentially raise questions about whether there are genuine, material factual disputes. The superior court is in the best position to consider those threshold questions for the first time. [45] We remand for further proceedings on the remaining motions.