Opinion ID: 2623334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: summary of issues and our decisions concerning them

Text: The briefs in these cases present numerous issues. We summarize them here, along with our decision concerning each issue. 1. Did Last Frontier have a common-law duty to advise the Peters as to whether their coverage limits were appropriate? DECISION: If a special relationship existed between Last Frontier and the Peters there was such a duty. There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was such a relationship. 2. Do AS 21.89.020(c) and (e) give rise to duties that are enforceable in a private action against an insurance company? DECISION: Yes. 3. Do the same subsections give rise to duties that are enforceable in a private action against an insurance agent? DECISION: No. 4. Were there genuine issues of material fact as to the claim that Progressive violated its duty under AS 21.89.020(c) to offer optional limits? DECISION: Yes. 5. Does AS 21.89.020(e) require the written waiver of each set of optional limits that is not selected? DECISION: No. 6. Did the court err in refusing to continue the determination of Last Frontier's motion for summary judgment in order to permit Peter to conduct further discovery? DECISION: No. We now discuss these points.