## Facts

- Bonanza Fuel, Inc. operated a fuel business in Nome, Alaska.
- Delta W., Inc. was a fuel supplier.
- Bonanza contracted with Delta for Delta to ship fuel to a port in Nome during the 2011 summer barge season.
- When Delta was to deliver the fuel, the harbor in Nome froze over, and Delta asserted that it experienced multiple delays that interfered with delivery.
- Delta tried to arrange for the United States Coast Guard to deliver the fuel; the available summary indicates there was no evidence the Coast Guard was unable to accomplish delivery, though Delta did not ultimately use the Coast Guard to deliver the fuel.
- Additional delays followed.
- Bonanza terminated Delta as its supplier and retained Vitus Marine, LLC to deliver the fuel.
- Vitus Marine successfully delivered the fuel to Nome.
- Bonanza sued Delta for breach of contract and moved for summary judgment.
- Delta opposed summary judgment, arguing the harbor freezing was a force majeure event and that impracticability excused its nonperformance and barred Bonanza’s recovery.

## Issues

1. Whether the freezing of Nome’s harbor qualified as a force majeure event that excused Delta’s nonperformance under the parties’ contract.
2. Whether the doctrine of impracticability excused Delta’s failure to deliver fuel where potential alternative means of performance were discussed (including Coast Guard assistance) and another carrier later delivered the fuel.
3. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, Bonanza was entitled to judgment on its breach-of-contract claim despite Delta’s asserted defenses.

## Decision

- The court addressed Bonanza’s motion for summary judgment in its breach-of-contract action against Delta.
- The court evaluated Delta’s opposition based on force majeure and impracticability tied to the freezing of the Nome harbor.
- The publicly available case summaries do not disclose the motion’s precise disposition or the order’s full reasoning beyond identifying the defenses and factual context considered.

## Legal Principles

- Force majeure and impracticability are asserted to excuse nonperformance when a supervening event materially interferes with contractual performance and is not a risk allocated to the nonperforming party by the contract or commercial context.
- A party invoking impracticability typically must show more than delay or increased difficulty and must account for reasonably available alternative methods of performance.
- On summary judgment, the moving party must show there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; a nonmovant relying on an affirmative defense must point to evidence supporting that defense.

## Conclusion

Bonanza Fuel, Inc. v. Delta W., Inc. concerns a failed 2011 fuel delivery to Nome, Alaska after the harbor froze, leading Bonanza to terminate Delta and obtain successful delivery through Vitus Marine; in resisting Bonanza’s summary-judgment motion, Delta relied on force majeure and impracticability theories tied to the harbor conditions and its efforts (including attempted Coast Guard arrangements) to complete performance.


Bonanza Fuel, Inc. v. Delta W., Inc., 2013 WL 12120092 (2013)