## Facts

- Dennis W. Turnbull and Rodger Bigby, doing business as Denro Investments, sought a commercial property with stable rental income to cover mortgage payments.
- In November 1977, Denro worked with Anchorage real estate broker Colette LaRose, who recommended the Mueller Building, then leased to the State of Alaska.
- The state lease included one remaining one-year renewal option that would extend the lease through April 1979 if exercised by March 1, 1978.
- Denro alleged LaRose repeatedly assured that if the state exercised the option, the state would likely remain in the building for many years and negotiate a longer-term lease with new owners.
- Denro agreed to purchase the building conditioned on the state exercising the renewal option; an earnest money agreement reflected that condition.
- After the option was exercised, the state sought to assign the lease; Denro alleged LaRose represented that the assignment would merely shift occupancy from one state agency to another.
- The lease was instead assigned to a private entity; the building was later vacated, Denro could not secure a comparable tenant, and Denro sold the building at a loss.
- Denro sued LaRose, her brokerage, and the seller/owner interests (including Mueller Building Investors and Robert D. Mueller) for misrepresentation and related tort theories; the superior court granted summary judgment for all defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the broker’s assurances about continued state tenancy and the nature of the lease assignment could constitute actionable fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, rather than non-actionable opinion or prediction.
2. Whether the alleged statements concerned material facts and whether Denro reasonably relied on them in deciding to purchase the building.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact required denial of summary judgment when evidence was viewed in the nonmovant’s favor.
4. Whether the evidentiary record at summary judgment was sufficient to allow punitive damages to be considered.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment on the principal misrepresentation-based claims.
- The court held that, when the record was viewed in the light most favorable to Denro, genuine issues of material fact existed regarding what was said, how it was understood, and whether it was misleading.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including fact-finding on liability, reliance, causation, and the scope of any available damages, with punitive damages subject to a higher threshold showing.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where genuine disputes of material fact exist, and the record must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party.
- Misrepresentation liability may arise from a false statement (or misleading representation) of fact that is material, induces reasonable reliance, and causes damages.
- Statements framed as forecasts about future events are generally non-actionable, but they may be actionable when made by a speaker with superior knowledge, when they imply present facts, or when they are presented to induce reliance as though grounded in such facts.
- In broker-client contexts, a broker’s professional role and asserted expertise may support treating certain “assurances” as implied factual representations for purposes of fraud or negligent misrepresentation analysis.
- Whether a representation is material, whether reliance was reasonable, and whether the statement was understood as a fact representation are typically questions for the trier of fact in contested commercial transactions.

## Conclusion

The court held that Denro presented triable factual disputes over whether a real estate broker’s tenant-related assurances and statements about a lease assignment were actionable misrepresentations and whether Denro materially and reasonably relied on them, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand for trial.


Turnbull v. LaRose, 702 P.2d 1331 (Alaska 1985)