Opinion ID: 1174822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issues of fact re: punitive damages.

Text: The trial judge found no evidence supporting a claim for punitive damages and dismissed the claim. Punitive damages can be recovered in an action for breach of contract if the conduct constituting the breach is also a tort for which punitive damages are recoverable. McKibben v. Mohawk Oil, 667 P.2d 1223, 1232 (Alaska 1983). To support an award of punitive damages, the conduct must be outrageous; malicious acts, or acts done with reckless indifference to the interests of another constitute outrageous conduct. Alaska Northern Development v. Alyeska Pipeline Service, 666 P.2d 33, 41 (Alaska 1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 706, 79 L.Ed.2d 170 (1984). Assuming without deciding that Lufthansa's conduct was tortious, there is no evidence of malicious conduct in this record. Additionally, the previous discussion regarding fraud also forecloses finding reckless indifference to support an award of punitive damages. There is simply no evidence giving rise to an inference of conduct sufficiently outrageous to be deemed the equivalent of actual malice. Because there is no such evidence, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to Zeman's claim for punitive damages. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.