Asrc Energy Services Power and Communications, LLC (f/k/a Global Power & Communications, LLC) and Global Power/city…

Summary

The court held that Alaska's statutory directive to give weight to federal unfair-trade-law interpretations did not require abandoning Alaska precedent defining unfair and deceptive practices under the UTPA. It affirmed the validity of the jury instruction and the pre-litigation UTPA damages, but held that litigation expenses could not be recovered as UTPA damages, that a new trial was required on causation and damages for a separate contract breach, and that the purported Rule 68 offer was invalid. The court therefore affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new trial and fee redetermination.