## Facts

- Native Alaskan Reclamation & Pest Control, Inc. (Native) sought financing from United Bank Alaska (United) to purchase 11 airplanes located in Japan.
- Native and United entered a written loan agreement in which United agreed to finance the purchase, and six of the aircraft would serve as collateral.
- Native’s plan depended on staged performance: it expected to bring aircraft to Alaska in sequence and use aircraft already brought to the United States to support additional financing for those still in Japan.
- In reliance on the agreement, Native incurred costs connected with the transaction, including expenses to inspect, prepare, and arrange handling of the aircraft.
- A few months later, United refused to honor the loan agreement and declined to advance the funds.
- Native attempted to obtain substitute financing but was unsuccessful.
- Native also incurred expenses after the refusal attempting to protect its position and prevent loss of the aircraft.
- Ultimately, Native lost the aircraft; they were sold as scrap in Japan.
- Native sued United for breach of contract. The trial court found United’s refusal to perform was a willful breach.
- The trial court identified three categories of claimed loss: (1) reliance losses incurred before breach, (2) post-breach mitigation expenses, and (3) expectation damages measured as net profits Native would have made had United funded the loan, reduced by interest Native would have paid.
- Despite identifying those categories, the trial court ruled United could not reasonably foresee that Native would lose the aircraft if the bank refused to fund and therefore awarded only mitigation damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court used an overly narrow foreseeability standard in concluding that Native’s loss of the aircraft and related losses were not within the parties’ contemplation at the time of contracting.
2. Whether a lender’s breach of a loan agreement can support recovery of foreseeable reliance damages incurred before breach and expectation damages (including lost profits) proved with reasonable certainty, in addition to mitigation expenses.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court held that the trial court applied an unduly restrictive foreseeability approach by requiring United to foresee the complete loss of the aircraft as the specific outcome of breach.
- The Court ruled that the correct inquiry is whether, based on facts known to United at contracting, the general type of harm was a probable consequence of breach.
- Because United knew the loan’s purpose was to acquire identified aircraft in Japan and that Native’s performance depended on funding, the Court concluded that loss tied to inability to complete the purchase could be foreseeable.
- The Court rejected any categorical limit that would confine recovery to post-breach mitigation costs and exclude pre-breach reliance losses as a matter of law.
- The Court also rejected a blanket refusal to consider lost profits merely because the project carried business risk; the proper question is whether lost profits are shown with reasonable certainty.
- The judgment was reversed in relevant part and remanded for a new damages determination consistent with proper foreseeability, causation, and certainty standards.

## Legal Principles

- Contract damages include losses that the breaching party had reason to foresee, at the time of contracting, as a probable result of breach, considering the facts known then.
- Foreseeability focuses on the type of loss, not the precise chain of events or exact magnitude of harm.
- When a lender breaches a loan agreement, the borrower is not limited to recovery of post-breach mitigation expenses; the borrower may also recover foreseeable reliance damages and expectation damages if proved.
- Reliance damages may compensate for expenditures reasonably made in preparation for performance when those expenditures were a predictable consequence of entering the agreement.
- Lost profits are recoverable if causation is shown and the profits are established with reasonable certainty; a new or developing venture is not automatically barred from recovering lost profits.
- Mitigation expenses reasonably incurred after breach remain recoverable, but mitigation does not displace other categories of foreseeable damages.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s limitation of damages to mitigation costs, holding that United’s knowledge of Native’s aircraft-purchase plan and dependence on the promised financing could make broader losses—such as reliance expenditures and lost profits—foreseeable and recoverable if proven with reasonable certainty, and it remanded for recalculation of damages under the proper standards.


Native Alaskan Reclamation & Pest Control, Inc. v. United Bank Alaska, 685 P.2d 1211 (1984)