Opinion ID: 2515119
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Awarding fees to Glynwood in this case would undermine public policy.

Text: In addition to having little plausible basis in law, awarding attorney's fees against the tenants after they had settled their case would undermine public policy. As noted by the tenants, Glynwood's proposed rule, whereby an insured defendant could be declared the prevailing party in a case where the defendant's insurer has agreed to a substantial settlement with the plaintiffs, would chill future settlements in Alaska and contravene well-settled public policy. We recently recognized: [T]here is a strong public policy in favor of the settlement of disputes. Settlements and settlement hearings facilitate communication and compromise; they encourage litigants to voluntarily resolve their disputes; and they simplify, shorten and settle litigation without taking up valuable court resources. Accordingly, private settlements and stipulations are to be favored and should not be lightly set aside. [27] But if a defendant could be considered the prevailing party simply by refusing to accept a settlement negotiated by its insurer, this would force plaintiffs either to accept the settlement and risk being liable for the defendant's attorney's fees or to continue litigating the case after an acceptable resolution has already been reached. We review a superior court's determination of prevailing party status and attorney's fees for abuse of discretion. [28] We will find an abuse of discretion only if the record as a whole leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. [29] Glynwood has not shown that the superior court abused its discretion in denying Glynwood prevailing party status. Furthermore, accepting Glynwood's arguments would lead to a decision that is contrary to the public policy in favor of settlement agreements. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the superior court.