Construction Claim Rules in Alaska

Statutory interest rate

Floating, ~3 points above the Fed 12th District discount rate, reset every Jan. 2

One rate covers both pre- and post-judgment interest in Alaska: three percentage points above the 12th Federal Reserve District discount rate in effect on January 2 of the year the judgment is entered. If a written contract specifies its own rate (not exceeding the legal rate), the court may apply the contract rate instead. Prejudgment interest accrues from the earlier of when the defendant was served, or received written notice reasonably alerting them to a likely claim.

Compounding: Not stated in the statute text; do not assume simple or compound without further confirmation from Alaska case law or court rules.

Citation: Alaska Stat. § 09.30.070

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-9/chapter-30/article-1/section-09-30-070/

Last checked: 2026-08-25

Cross-checked the Fed 12th District discount rate + 3 points against the Federal Reserve's official H.15 release (federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/), dated August 25, 2026: current computed rate is approximately 6.75 (reset Jan. 2; based on the discount rate, which has held at 3.75% since at least the Fed's Jan. 20, 2026 meeting through today)%. This confirms the formula and current inputs; it is not a substitute for each state's own officially certified/published figure where one exists.

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From the earlier of when the defendant was served, or received written notice of the likely claim

Alaska Stat. § 09.30.070(b) sets a single accrual rule covering both contract and tort/property-damage claims: prejudgment interest begins from the day process is served on the defendant, or the day the defendant received written notification of a nature that would lead a prudent person to believe a claim will be made, whichever is earlier.

Citation: Alaska Stat. § 09.30.070(b)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-9/chapter-30/article-1/section-09-30-070/

This is a notice-based accrual date, not automatically the date of breach or loss; a written notice sent well before filing suit can start interest running earlier than service of process would.

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Same single accrual rule as contract claims: earlier of service or written notice

Alaska doesn't use a separate date-of-loss rule for property damage; the same § 09.30.070(b) standard applies, running from the earlier of service of process or written notice reasonably alerting the defendant to a likely claim for property damage.

Citation: Alaska Stat. § 09.30.070(b)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-9/chapter-30/article-1/section-09-30-070/

Actual Cash Value rule

Not established: no controlling case or statute found (confirmed by a second, more rigorous research pass)

No Alaska Supreme Court decision or statute was found adopting either the broad evidence rule or replacement-cost-minus-depreciation as the ACV methodology. Alaska's insurance regulation (3 AAC 26.090) addresses how insurers must settle claims procedurally, offering comparable replacement property or a cash settlement based on actual cost of comparable property, but doesn't define an ACV valuation formula the way other states' rules do. A second research pass specifically pulled and read Bering Strait School Dist. v. RLI Ins. Co., 873 P.2d 1292 (Alaska 1994) in full and confirmed it addresses replacement-cost policy interpretation (an 'ordinance or law' coverage exclusion), not ACV valuation methodology; it does not fill this gap.

Citation: 3 AAC 26.090 (claims-handling procedure, not a valuation formula)

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/alaska/3-AAC-26.090

The state Division of Insurance briefly barred labor depreciation in a 2024 bulletin (B 24-07), then reversed that position eight months later (B 25-03, Jan. 2025, confirmed still the current, operative bulletin as of this review); neither bulletin is binding law and this flip-flop is disclosed here rather than treated as settled guidance. An older bulletin (93-08) is also on record describing a replacement-cost-minus-depreciation approach, adding a third data point in the same non-binding-guidance category. Do not treat Alaska's ACV rule as confirmed.

ACV statute or regulation

Alaska has no statute or regulation currently in force restricting labor depreciation; a 2024 bulletin that would have prohibited it was withdrawn in January 2025.

The Alaska Division of Insurance issued Bulletin B 24-07 on May 7, 2024, taking the position that depreciating labor when calculating ACV was improper. The Division withdrew that bulletin effective January 24, 2025 via Bulletin B 25-03, without issuing replacement guidance articulating a new position. As of this research date (August 23, 2026), Alaska has no statute, regulation, or standing bulletin addressing whether labor may be depreciated in an ACV calculation. Separately, Alaska Division of Insurance Bulletin 93-08 describes ACV generally as the actual cost to purchase a comparable item including applicable taxes and fees, but this predates and does not resolve the labor-depreciation question.

Citation: Alaska Div. of Ins. Bulletin B 24-07 (withdrawn by Bulletin B 25-03, eff. Jan. 24, 2025)

Source: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/11/Pub/B25-03.pdf

The withdrawal notice does not explain the Division's reasoning or signal a future replacement rule, so Alaska's current position should be treated as unsettled rather than as an affirmative no-restriction rule.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Alaska statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Alaska regulators briefly prohibited labor depreciation in 2024, then withdrew that position in 2025 -- the current rule is unsettled.

No Alaska statute or regulation specifically governing the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation was found. On the related scope question, the Alaska Division of Insurance issued a bulletin prohibiting depreciation of labor in calculating ACV on May 7, 2024, but withdrew that bulletin on January 23, 2025, leaving the question unsettled as of the most recent information reviewed.

Citation: Alaska Division of Insurance Bulletin B 24-07 (issued May 7, 2024); Bulletin B 25-03 (withdrawal, Jan. 23, 2025).

Source: https://www.hkr.law/survey-of-state-law-regarding-depreciation-of-labor-costs-in-determination-of-actual-cash-value/

RESEARCHED from scratch. No holdback-timing statute found; the labor-depreciation bulletin history is from a comprehensive, dated (Aug. 2025) 50-state survey, not independently re-verified against the primary bulletins in this pass.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Not established outside highway construction: Alaska courts haven't addressed the general rule

Alaska's Department of Transportation & Public Facilities standard highway-construction specifications let a contractor recover delay compensation only when the suspension or delay is unreasonable under the circumstances and a separate contract provision allows compensation, or when the delay stems from the department's own failure to meet its contractual obligations. Outside that highway-contract context, secondary sources report that Alaska courts have not addressed whether or how general no-damages-for-delay clauses are enforced.

Citation: Alaska Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities Standard Specifications § 108-1.06(4)(b)

Source: https://www.woodsaitken.com/sites/default/files/Survey_50-State-Matrix_Pay-If-Paid_No-Damage-for-Delay.pdf

This rule is specific to Alaska DOT&PF highway contracts, not general construction law; a free, directly-linkable primary copy of the current specifications section wasn't located this pass, and no general-construction Alaska case or statute was found. Confirm with counsel for any non-highway Alaska project. Independently confirmed via a comprehensive 50-state matrix (Woods Aitken LLP): Alaska DOT specs section is cited there as § 108-1.06(3), a minor pincite difference from the earlier draft; the matrix also confirms no Alaska court has addressed no-damages-for-delay clauses outside the highway-construction context.

Construction contract filing deadline

3 years for a contract action, unless waived by contract

Alaska's general limitations period for an action on a contract or liability, express or implied, is 3 years, one of the shorter periods in this research project; the statute itself allows the parties to waive this provision by contract.

Citation: Alaska Stat. § 09.10.053

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/2022/title-9/chapter-10/section-09-10-053/

Because the statute expressly allows contractual waiver, check the specific contract's own terms; a waiver clause could change the effective deadline.

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

Taxable wage base $54,200; employer rates 1.00% to 5.40% (2026)

Alaska's 2026 taxable wage base is $54,200 per employee, among the highest in the country. Experience-rated employer contribution rates run from 1.00% to 5.40% across 21 rate classes based on the employer's average quarterly decline in reserve ratio, and employees also contribute a matching payroll deduction (0.50% for 2026). Combined employer plus employee rates span roughly 1.50% to 5.90%.

Citation: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Employment Security Tax Division (2026 rates)

Source: https://labor.alaska.gov/estax/2026-experience-rates.html

Last checked: 2026-08-26

The department's 2026 rate page presents experience-class rates rather than a single stated 'new employer' figure; new employers are assigned to a specific class under AS 23.20 until they accrue enough history to be individually experience-rated. Confirm the exact new-employer class assignment against the department's current-year new employer rate notice. Wage base confirmed directly against two official Alaska government sources (a DOLWD PDF and an akleg.gov legislative document), both agreeing on $54,200. Several secondary payroll-guide sites were found using a stale $49,700 wage base for their 2026 coverage, which undermines confidence in their conflicting rate claims; the existing 1.00%-5.40% range is consistent with the official confirmation that all 20 non-penalty rate classes are currently at the statutory minimum.

Workers' compensation rating

NCCI advisory rates and class codes apply

Alaska is an NCCI state. Private workers' compensation carriers writing in Alaska use NCCI's advisory loss costs and standard classification system, filed through and regulated by the Alaska Division of Insurance. There is no exclusive state fund; employers buy coverage on the open private market.

Citation: NCCI, Alaska state rate/rule filings

Source: https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Documents/RM_State_Instructions_AK.pdf

Prevailing wage law

State prevailing-wage law applies above $25,000

Alaska has its own 'little Davis-Bacon' law under AS 36.05 (Title 36, Public Contracts), requiring contractors and subcontractors on public construction contracts to pay not less than the current prevailing wage rate for similar work in the region. The requirement applies to public construction contracts exceeding $25,000, with wage determinations issued by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development at least 10 days before bids are due.

Citation: AS 36.05.010 et seq.

Source: https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Text/27?Hsid=HB0155B

OSHA plan

AKOSH: full state plan, private + public sector

Alaska operates AKOSH (Alaska Occupational Safety and Health), a full OSHA-approved state plan covering both private and public-sector employers.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667; AS § 18.60.010 et seq.

Source: https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/ak

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

A ninth state confirmed leaning toward pure negligence per se: but explicitly limited to the employer-employee relationship, not extending to independent contractors

The Alaska Supreme Court has assumed, without formally deciding, that OSHA violations could constitute negligence per se, consistent with the state's general endorsement of negligence per se principles. However, this classification is explicitly limited: Alaska courts have held that OSHA-based negligence per se does not extend to a plaintiff who was an independent contractor rather than the defendant's actual employee; meaning the stronger per se-leaning treatment applies specifically within a genuine employment relationship, not to a general third-party defendant.

Citation: Pagenkopf v. Chatham Electric, Inc., 165 P.3d 634, 647-49 (Alaska 2007); State v. Johnson, 2 P.3d 56, 62-63 (Alaska 2000)

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ak-supreme-court/1414154.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

Alaska Stat. Section23.30.045(a), amended in 2004, extends workers-comp immunity to persons or entities contractually upstream from the direct employer (e.g., a general contractor above a subcontractor-employer), barring third-party contribution against them.

Alaska Stat. Section23.30.055 makes workers-comp exclusive against the direct employer. A common-law rule, later partially codified by a 2004 amendment (AS 23.30.045(a)), extends this protection to persons or entities contractually upstream from the employer of the injured employee -- e.g., a general contractor who hires subcontractors, or an owner as to employees of its contractors and subcontractors (Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010); Nelson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 267 P.3d 636 (Alaska 2011)).

Citation: Alaska Stat. Section23.30.045(a), Section23.30.055; Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010); Nelson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 267 P.3d 636 (Alaska 2011).

Source: https://richmondquinn.com/compendiums/AKLitigationOverview2014.pdf

CORRECTED: the prior citation (Sweet v. Sisters of Providence, 895 P.2d 484 (Alaska 1995)) was wrong-topic -- that case is a medical-malpractice/spoliation-of-evidence case, unrelated to workers-comp third-party contribution. Replaced with the real, confirmed, on-point upstream-immunity authority.

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

CORRECTED: Alaska DOES have a real, well-established intentional-tort exception -- Elliott v. Brown (1977) -- but the prior citation ('Manson v. Alaska Airlines') was fabricated/does not exist.

Alaska Stat. Section23.30.055 makes workers comp the exclusive remedy, but Elliott v. Brown, 569 P.2d 1323 (Alaska 1977) recognized an exception for intentional torts committed by a fellow employee or employer, holding that 'the socially beneficial purpose of the workmen's compensation law would not be furthered by allowing a person who commits an intentional tort to use the compensation law as a shield against liability.' A stiff burden is placed on the employee to demonstrate actual intent to harm; mere negligence, gross negligence, or even willful disregard of safety regulations is insufficient (Alaska has NOT adopted the 'substantial certainty' test used in some other states). Also no protection where the employer fails to secure required coverage, or for an illegally employed minor.

Citation: Alaska Stat. Section23.30.055; Elliott v. Brown, 569 P.2d 1323 (Alaska 1977).

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/1990/s-2871-1.html

CORRECTED: fabricated citation caught -- no case named 'Manson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 495 P.2d 1094 (Alaska 1972)' could be found in any search; extensive searching turned up no such case. The real, repeatedly-confirmed foundational case is Elliott v. Brown, 569 P.2d 1323 (Alaska 1977), cited as the controlling intentional-tort-exception case in numerous subsequent Alaska Supreme Court decisions through at least 2020.

Distinctive state doctrine

Statutory design-professional immunity, now confirmed with full text: a precisely three-part exception structure, similar in spirit to Georgia/Missouri's model but more granular

AS § 23.30.017, 'Immunity for third-party design professional,' immunizes a design professional (defined in subsection (c) as a person licensed under AS 08.48 as an architect, engineer, or land surveyor) from third-party liability for injuries covered by workers' comp; but subsection (b) confirms three specific exceptions where the immunity does NOT apply: (1) the design professional specifically assumed responsibility for job site safety practices under a contract; (2) the design professional actually exercises control over the premises where the injury occurred; or (3) the design professional prepared design plans or specifications that contributed to the injury, and those plans or specifications were prepared negligently, recklessly, or with intentional misconduct. This is a more granular, three-part exception structure than Georgia's or Missouri's simpler 'unless safety responsibility assumed by contract' model, since it separately addresses actual site control and negligent design work as independent bases for losing immunity. Separately, while the exclusivity bar itself cannot be waived by contract, contractual indemnity is not precluded; meaning Alaska allows the same kind of contract-based route to employer liability seen in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The exclusivity rule can also extend beyond the immediate employer to protect a contractor, particularly relevant in construction, though the specific statutory-employer test applied wasn't confirmed this pass.

Citation: AS § 23.30.017(a)-(c)

Source: https://www.akleg.gov/basis/statutes.asp#23.30.017