sometimes conflicting, attention from the Alaska Supreme Court. However, the issue has recently received considerable attention because the Alaska Supreme Court has reached four decisions regarding this issue since this Court’s original order granting summary judgment. In fact, with these eases, the Aaska Supreme Court has resolved most of these recurring conflicts and points to a proper resolution of this case. Stormont, 889 P.2d 1059 (discussing the significance of an “as is” clause in a real estate sales contract); Pedersen v. Flannery, 863 P.2d 856 (Aaska 1993) (refining the distinction between tort and contract for purposes of the statute of limitations in professional malpractice cases); State Dep’t of Nat. Resources v. Transamerica Premier Ins. Co., 856 P.2d 766 (Aaska 1993) (<HOLDING>) and Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehan,
holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action holding that the failure to act in good faith  does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract holding that negligent breach of a duty assumed in a contract does not give rise to a separate tort claim holding that there must be a tort distinguishable from or independent of the breach of contract in order for a party to bring a valid claim in tort based on a breach in a contractual relationship