Nicholas A. Gefre and Charles T. Bec Individually and as a Derivative Action on Behalf of Petro Alaska, Inc., An…

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court held that damages for the limited legal‑malpractice claim are limited to the additional attorney’s fees caused by DWT’s failure to warn of the statute of limitations, that the proper measure is the actual fees paid under the contingent‑fee agreement, and that Petro may seek the full fee amount if it can show the fees would not have been incurred but for DWT’s negligence. The court affirmed the trial‑court’s discretion to segment the trial and denied summary judgment on proximate‑cause, while reversing the fee‑preclusion ruling and vacating the fee award, remanding for further determination.