Howarth v. First National Bank of Anchorage , 1979 Alas. LEXIS 523 ( 1979 )

CONNOR, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent.

While the oral discussions testified to by Howarth may support Howarth’s assumptions of what the bank undertook to do, there is no indication that the bank intended to obligate itself in the manner claimed by Howarth. The representation by Linton that there was already insurance on the property might amount to misrepresentation. But that does not support an obligation to procure insurance. On the state of the record, Howarth’s assumptions about the bank’s undertaking were unwarranted. In my opinion the evidence was insufficient to take the case to the jury, and the superi- or court properly granted the directed verdict against Howarth.

I would affirm.