Horsford v. Horsford

561 P.2d 722 (Alaska 1977)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

William died in a crash of an F27 aircraft leaving a widow, P (who was appointed administratrix of the estate), and two teenage children by a prior marriage, William, Jr. and Mary Horsford. (Ds). P sued Wien Consolidated Airlines and Fairchild-Hiller Corp. for damages. This litigation was settled for $350,000. The settlement was made in a lump sum, without any allocation between P and DS and without any allocation between the wrongful death action and the survival action. The superior court then approved the settlement, dismissed the suit, and reserved ruling upon the allocation questions. Under Alaska's Wrongful Death Statute damages are required to be assessed according to the loss suffered by each statutory beneficiary. The statute is silent as to whether or not the trier of fact should determine the loss suffered by each surviving beneficiary and then make a separate award for each, or calculate the loss suffered by each beneficiary, total such losses, and then enter a lump sum verdict. P proposed an allocation formula which was based on the pecuniary loss to each surviving statutory beneficiary, or what he or she could each reasonably expect to have received in support and other services from the deceased had he lived. P tendered her motion for distribution of the net proceeds of the settlement which at the time of the motion amounted to $225,864.35. P's formula called for the totaling of all the years which the combined parties could reasonably have expected to receive significant benefits from the decedent. Ds would receive benefits until he or she reached the age of majority, 19, under the formula. P's years of dependency were based upon the life expectancy of Mr. Horsford since his life expectancy was for a period shorter than P's. The sum of all the years of dependency is then employed as the denominator, and the number of years each surviving statutory beneficiary could reasonably expect significant benefits to him or herself is used as the numerator, thereby creating a fraction for each beneficiary. The net proceeds of the settlement are then divided by each fractional share. P got $179,144.00, and Ds got $46,720.00 net of sums already distributed and to be accounted for relating to workman's compensation. Ds were to get a further distribution of $4,987, while P received $130,349 from the remaining funds under the formula which had not been initially been advanced by P. The superior court approved P's proposed method of distribution and Ds brought this appeal.