Alaska Employment Law

The 9th Circuit has reversed U. S. District Judge Russel Holland and held that he erred in rejecting Exxon’s attempt to introduce extrinsic evidence to attack an alleged agreement to use compound rather than simple interest on settlement funds. 

The appeals court said:

The fact that Defendants acknowledged in post-contractual briefing that interest would not be compounded under the Alaska statute bears on the question whether the parties had agreed to compound the interest.  The [Alaska] parol evidence rule does not bar admission of this evidence because the rule, by its own terms, bars only evidence of “prior” agreements, not post-contractual conduct.  []  Moreover, the Settlement Agreement provided that Exxon would pay prejudgment interest “as provided by law.”  Extrinsic eivdence is admissible to ascertain the meaning of the term “as provided by law,” including whether the phrase refers only to the default Alaska rule applying simple interest, even though the Agreement contained an integration clause. 

We conclude rthat the district court erred in failing to consider extrinsic evidence regarding whether the parties agreed to compound interest.

Polar Equipment, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2009 WL ______ (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2009)