## Facts

- Michael A. Lamb and Cynthia E. Johnson-Lamb bought a house in Kodiak, Alaska, in August 1991.
- On October 15, 1991, they called John’s Heating Service to check their furnace; employee Tim Galloway responded.
- The Lambs reported the furnace was malfunctioning, circulating soot, and accompanied by a persistent fuel smell.
- Cynthia Lamb showed Galloway fabric-softener sheets used as makeshift vent filters that had collected soot; Galloway allegedly downplayed the concern, said the house needed cleaning, leveled the fuel tank, relit the furnace, and left.
- The Lambs later developed physical and neurological symptoms they attributed to long-term, low-level carbon-monoxide exposure from the furnace.
- On January 31, 1993, a different contractor inspected the furnace, warned it was likely circulating carbon monoxide and other gases, and advised against continued use; the Lambs replaced the furnace six days later.
- The Lambs sued John’s Heating on December 23, 1993, alleging negligent failure to repair or warn; John’s Heating asserted the statute of limitations as a defense.
- The trial court precluded the statute of limitations defense on summary judgment, admitted the Lambs’ medical experts, and the jury found for the Lambs with a comparative-negligence reduction.
- John’s Heating appealed multiple rulings; the Lambs cross-appealed on comparative-negligence and verdict-related issues.

## Issues

1. Whether disputed facts existed as to when the Lambs were on inquiry notice, making it error to preclude John’s Heating’s statute of limitations defense on summary judgment.
2. Whether prejudgment interest may be awarded on future economic damages under Alaska law.
3. Whether an unapportioned joint offer of judgment by joint offerors could trigger Alaska Civil Rule 68’s enhanced interest provisions.

## Decision

- Reversed the summary-judgment ruling that precluded the statute of limitations defense and remanded for fact-finding on accrual under the discovery rule.
- Held prejudgment interest on future economic damages is not permitted and struck that portion of the award.
- Upheld the validity of the unapportioned joint offer of judgment for Rule 68 purposes on the circumstances presented.
- Affirmed the judgment in all other respects, including challenged expert rulings, jury instructions, and evidentiary decisions.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alaska’s discovery rule, a tort claim accrues when a plaintiff has inquiry notice: enough information that a reasonable person would investigate the cause and possible fault.
- When the accrual date depends on reasonableness and competing inferences from conflicting evidence, it presents a disputed material fact that must be resolved by the fact-finder rather than on summary judgment.
- Prejudgment interest may not be awarded on future damages that are discounted to present value at trial because doing so produces an improper duplicative recovery.
- An unapportioned joint offer of judgment may be valid to invoke Alaska Civil Rule 68 consequences when structured to provide a clear settlement choice without unfairness or confusion.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court required a factual determination of when the plaintiffs were on inquiry notice for statute of limitations purposes, eliminated prejudgment interest on future economic damages, and otherwise left the trial result intact while confirming that a properly structured unapportioned joint offer can support Rule 68’s enhanced-interest consequences.


John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024 (Alaska 2002)