Opinion ID: 2623334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: There Are Genuine Issues of Material Fact as to Whether Progressive Violated Its Duty Under AS 21.89.020(c) to Offer Optional Limits.

Text: Last Frontier and Progressive take issue with Donita's assertion that the Peters would have purchased higher limits if she had known that higher limits were available. They point out that in policies that the Peters purchased in 1993 and again in 1997 the Peters selected minimum coverage, even though they clearly were advised as to the availability of higher limit coverage as to those policies. Last Frontier and Progressive also argue that the Peters have had trouble making payments on their insurance policies, pointing out that the policy in question and the prior two policies owned by the Peters were canceled for nonpayment. They assert that this cancellation history is evidence that the Peters would not have selected higher limits because the premiums for a higher limit policy would have been greater and such a policy would be even more difficult for the Peters to maintain. Responding in part to these arguments, Peter noted that they had a policy with limits of 100/300 from 1990 to 1993. Alaska Statute 21.89.020(c) clearly requires that policy purchasers be offered the sets of optional limits described in subsection.020(c)(2). But Peter contends that such offers must be made in writing. Finding no textual basis for this argument, we reject it. But there is an unresolved factual question as to whether the availability of the optional limits prescribed by subsection .020(c) was communicated in any form to Donita. Last Frontier argues that this question is mooted because Donita's assertion that the Peters would have purchased higher limits had they known they were available is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on that point. It bases this argument on the fact that both before and after buying the policy in question the Peters purchased minimal limit policies in circumstances in which they were fully advised of the available options. In support, Last Frontier cites Sykes v. Melba Creek Mining, Inc., where we stated that there is little probative value to be found in self-serving testimony by parties concerning their subjective intent upon entering into a contract. [41] Last Frontier also refers to Martech Construction Co. v. Ogden Environmental Services, Inc., where we noted that a naked assertion by a litigant of an agreement to pay for certain equipment which is supported by no references to corroborating evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. [42] Last Frontier also relies on Yurioff v. American Honda Motor Co., where we observed that to create a genuine issue of material fact there must be more than a scintilla of contrary evidence. [43] Although Donita's affidavit is in her interest and thus can be described as self-serving, we do not believe that it is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. What Donita would have done had higher limits been offered is a speculative subject. But it is a subject on which personal and self-interested testimony is both admissible and necessary to show a loss. Further, although Donita's assertion of what she would have done respecting the 1994 policy is in conflict with what she did with respect to the 1993 and 1997 policies, it is nonetheless consistent with the policy the Peters owned from 1990 to 1993. Finally, we do not regard the evidence that conflicts with her assertion to be so compelling as to render her affidavit merely a scintilla of evidence. For these reasons we conclude that there is also a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Peters would have purchased higher limits if they had been offered.