Opinion ID: 1406018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: order it is hereby ordered:

Text: The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED by an evenly divided court. RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice, joined by MATTHEWS, Justice, would affirm the superior court for the following reasons. This appeal arises from a contract dispute among Taylor Construction Services, Inc. and Ritchie Transportation Company, Inc. (Taylor-Ritchie), URS Company (URS), and the City of Wrangell (Wrangell). Taylor-Ritchie contracted with Wrangell to perform a project engineered by URS. An unresolved dispute led Taylor-Ritchie to sue Wrangell and URS for contract balances and delay and impact damages, alleging negligence and breach of implied warranty. Taylor-Ritchie sought roughly $334,000.00. Wrangell counterclaimed for defects in construction resulting in damages of approximately $600,000.00. URS did not file a counterclaim. Prior to trial Wrangell and URS made a joint offer to settle all claims against them, as well as Wrangell's counterclaim against Taylor-Ritchie, by payment of $70,000.00, unapportioned between the offerors. [1] Taylor-Ritchie did not accept the offer within 10 days. After a five week bench trial, the superior court found all parties were negligent to some degree and that (1) Wrangell and URS were jointly and severally liable to Taylor-Ritchie on its claim in the approximate sum of $162,000.00, and (2) Taylor-Ritchie was liable to Wrangell on its counterclaim in the approximate sum of $223,700.00. The superior court deducted the former from the latter and gave judgment to Wrangell for $61,700.00. No attorney's fees were awarded to any party because all parties were found to be at fault. The superior court was subsequently informed of the offer of judgment. It recomputed its calculation of damages and raised Wrangell's award from $61,700.00 to $86,900.00. In accord with Civil Rule 68, the court then awarded Wrangell after-offer attorney's fees of $45,000.00 and costs of $11,959.80, with interest. It also awarded URS attorney's fees of $35,000.00 and costs of $18,659.41, with interest. Taylor-Ritchie appeals only from the award of attorney's fees and costs to URS. Taylor-Ritchie argues first that the joint offer of judgment was ineffective to invoke Rule 68's penal cost sanctions. Second, it argues that its recovery was more favorable than the joint settlement offer, and that cost sanctions under Rule 68 are therefore impermissible. Finally, Taylor-Ritchie argues that the superior court abused its discretion by reversing its initial decision that each party should bear its own costs and attorney's fees, and by imposing fees substantially higher than those allowed by Rule 82(a)(1). We are not persuaded by these arguments and accordingly would affirm the superior court's award pursuant to Civil Rule 68 of post-offer attorney's fees and costs.