was not reversible error. 78 . Smithart v. State, 988 P.2d 583, 586 (Alaska 1999). 79 . Estate of Day v. Willis, 897 P.2d 78, 80 n. 2 (Alaska 1995) (citation omitted). 80 . Hibbits v. Sides, 34 P.3d 327, 330 (Alaska 2001). 81 . Day, 897 P.2d at 81. 82 . Sweet v. Sisters of Providence in Wash., 895 P.2d 484, 492 (Alaska 1995). 83 . Day, 897 P.2d at 81. 84 . Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Schwartz, 915 P.2d 632, 635 (Alaska 1996). 85 . Petersen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 803 P.2d 406, 410 (Alaska 1990). 86 . Day, 897 P.2d at 81 (citation omitted). 87 . Id. 88 . Id. at 80-82. 89 . Finch v. Greatland Foods, Inc., 21 P.3d 1282, 1288 (Alaska 2001). 90 . Id. at 1289. 91 . Id. 92 . Hibbits v. Sides, 34 P.3d 327, 330 (Alaska 2001). 93 . See Brumfield v. Exxon Corp., 63 SW.3d 912, 920 (Tex.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). 94 . Cf. Sweet v. Sisters of Providence in
recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence holding that no intentional police misrepresentation occurred holding that no spoliation claim existed where the defendant was not under any statutory or contractual duty to maintain or preserve the transformer in question and no evidence showed the defendant received actual notice before destroying the transformer holding no intentional spoliation occurred where defendant was not on notice that evidence was relevant to claim holding that an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence requires proof that evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind and that it was relevant to the partys claim or defense