This conclusion is reinforced by the Legislature's making diversion a felony and by the decisional authorities in other jurisdictions. (Great W. Sav. Bank v Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569 [Alaska]; Zemon v Lufthansa German Airlines, 699 P.2d 1274 [Alaska].) In both of the cited authorities, the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed judgments for punitive damages where the evidence allowed the jury to find tortious conduct entailing outrageous behavior in misapplying funds entrusted for the payment of construction costs.

We have consistently maintained that "[p]unitive damages are not recoverable for breach of contract unless the conduct constituting the breach constitutes an independent tort." ARCO Alaska, Inc. v. Akers, 753 P.2d 1150, 1153 (Alaska 1988); see also Great Western Savings Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569, 580 (Alaska 1989) ("punitive damages are not normally allowed on a breach of contract claim unless the conduct would also be a tort"); Walt v. State, 751 P.2d 1345, 1354 (Alaska 1988) (punitive damages unavailable because claimant "assert[ed] no recognizable tort claims"); Wien Air Alaska v. Bubbel, 723 P.2d 627, 630-31 (Alaska 1986). Thus, it would seem that we must decide whether Racine's hybrid action is a "tort" for purposes of determining the availability of punitive damages.

See supra Part A. 1. As for the estoppel argument, the general rule is that equitable estoppel will not support a claim for affirmative relief.Great Western Savings Bank v. George W. Easley Co., J.V., 778 P.2d 569, 579 (Alaska 1989). We have, however, noted that there is contrary authority, and employing equitable estoppel as a basis for monetary relief is not plain error.

'"Sturm, Ruger Co., Inc. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38, 46 (Alaska 1979) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 (Tent. Draft No. 19, 1973)), modified, 615 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 894, 102 S.Ct. 391, 70 L.Ed.2d 209 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Dura Corp. v. Harned, 703 P.2d 396 (Alaska 1985); accord Great Western Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., J.V., 778 P.2d 569 (Alaska 1989); Lee Houston Associates, Ltd. v. Racine, 806 P.2d 848 (Alaska 1991). Punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence.

In the majority of cases courts have declared that, in the absence of a valid claim under a state's mechanic lien statute, the contractor is not precluded from pursuing whatever common-law actions are available. See Lockhart v. O'Neal, 253 Ala. 254, 255-56, 44 So.2d 17, 17-18 (1950); Madison Highlands Dev. Co. v. Dean Son Plumbing Co., 415 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Great W. Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569, 578 (Alaska 1989); Phoenix Title Trust Co. v. Garrett, 73 Ariz. 55, 56-57, 237 P.2d 470, 471 (1951); Nibbi Bros., Inc. v. Brannan St. Investors, 205 Cal.App.3d 1415, 1421-23, 253 Cal.Rptr. 289, 293 (1988); Robinson v. Peardon, 112 Cal.App.2d 794, 795, 247 P.2d 83, 83 (1952); Hayutin v. Gibbons, 139 Colo. 262, 265-67, 338 P.2d 1032, 1035 (1959); J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Inv. 85, Ltd., 546 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla.App. 1989); Cato v. David Excavating Co., 435 N.E.2d 597, 606 (Ind. App. 1982); Rafaelsen v. Olson, 174 Kan. 86, 86-87, 254 P.2d 268, 269 (1953); Poulos v. Stewart, 313 Ky. 812, 815, 233 S.W.2d 994, 996 (1950); Friedman v. Stein, 4 N.J. 34, 44-46, 71 A.2d 346, 351-52 (1950); Brook-Hattan Utils., Inc. v. 893 Constr. Corp., 180 A.D.2d 660, 579 N.Y.S.2d 705, 706 (N.Y.App. Div. 1992) (mem.); Wiggins v. Southwood Park Corp., 221 Or. 61, 65-67, 350 P.2d 436, 438 (1960); Neiderhauser Builders Dev. Corp. v. Campbell, 824 P.2d 1193, 1196 (Utah App. 1992); West Virginia Sanitary Eng'g Corp. v. Kurish, 137

Creating a broader tort remedy would disrupt the certainty of commercial transactions and allow parties to escape contractual allocation of losses. Therefore, an action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing sounds in contract alone.Id.; Great Western Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569, 581 (Alaska 1989). Transamerica also relies on a California case, Seaman's Direct Buying Serv., Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 36 Cal.3d 752, 206 Cal.Rptr. 354, 363, 686 P.2d 1158, 1167 (1984).

Rather, we will determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is such that reasonable persons could not differ in their judgment. Great Western Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569, 578 (Alaska 1989). The superior court called the note to the attorneys' attention and with the attorneys' approval questioned the jury about its intent.

That claim, however, would be litigated in the court of claims, not this Court. It is less clear but likely that she would have a separate claim for misrepresentation either in equity for restitution or at law for negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation. See ARCO Alaska, Inc. v. Akers, 753 P.2d 1150, 1153 (Alaska 1988); Great Western Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569, 580-81 (Alaska 1989); Turnbull v. LaRose, 702 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Alaska 1985) (non-disclosure). The United States has not consented to be sued for such claims.

Id. at 1079 n. 4. Similarly, in Great Western Savings Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569 (Alaska 1989), the trial court entered an order subordinating a construction lender's deed of trust to a general contractor's mechanics' lien. On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that, because it was affirming a money judgment against the lender, "the order of subordination can be viewed as an order in aid of collection of the judgment which is within the inherent power of the court."

Cases cited by ACI II are consistent with this conclusion. ACI II contends that Great Western Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569 (Alaska 1989), establishes its third party beneficiary status. In that case, we did hold that the defendant lender's loan to a borrower created enforceable rights in a third party creditor.