Opinion ID: 1197884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: shanley's cross-appeal

Text: Shanley received prejudgment interest from the date the complaint was served on the State, February 5, 1991. He argued that interest should have begun to run on December 24, 1989. Under AS 09.30.070(b), prejudgment interest accrues from the day process is served on the defendant or the day the defendant received written notification that an injury has occurred and that a claim may be brought against the defendant for that injury, whichever is earlier. The statute goes on to state that written notification must be of a nature that would lead a prudent person to believe that a claim will be made against the person receiving the notification, for personal injury.... AS 09.30.070(b). Shanley argues that the State received written notification of his claim on December 24, 1989, and supports his argument with the following facts. A State claims adjuster wrote Shanley on December 13, 1989. The letter, in its entirety, stated: It is my understanding that in talking with Mr. Gavin you were injured in an accident on January 19, 1989 and it is also my understanding that you are currently represented by an attorney. Would you please forward this letter to your attorney immediately as I will need a letter of representation from him, and I will want to talk to him. On December 21, 1989, Shanley's lawyer responded by writing the State's adjuster. Shanley's attorney stated: I have undertaken the representation of Mr. Shanley but am not prepared to discuss the case with you at this time. Shanley argues that the date this letter was mailed, plus three days for delivery (December 24, 1989), is the day the State received written notice that a claim would be made on his behalf. The State contends that the issue is whether Shanley gave anything that constitutes notice of intent to sue as required by AS 09.30.070. The State argues that a letter that merely states representation and refuses to discuss a case should not qualify as written notification. The superior court found that neither the State's letter to Shanley, nor Shanley's attorney's response met the requirements of AS 9.30.070(b). Interest should commence to run when the complaint was served on the State. [7] We agree with Shanley. In our view a prudent person upon receipt of Shanley's lawyer's letter in response to that of the adjuster would believe that a claim would be made against the State for Shanley's injuries. [8] We therefore hold that the superior court erred in calculating prejudgment interest from the date the complaint was filed, rather than December 24, 1989.