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

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 settled: no Alaska statute or supreme court decision adopts an ACV valuation method

No Alaska statute or Alaska Supreme Court decision adopts either the broad evidence rule or replacement cost less depreciation as the ACV method. Alaska's claims regulation, 3 AAC 26.090, sets settlement procedure (a comparable replacement or a cash settlement based on the cost of comparable property) but not a valuation formula. Bering Strait School Dist. v. RLI Ins. Co., 873 P.2d 1292 (Alaska 1994), addresses replacement-cost coverage under an ordinance-or-law exclusion, not ACV valuation.

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 Division of Insurance barred labor depreciation in Bulletin B 24-07 (May 2024) and withdrew that bulletin effective January 24, 2025 (Bulletin B 25-03). Bulletins are guidance, not binding law, so read the policy's own definition of ACV first.

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 7 May 2024, taking the position that depreciating labor when calculating ACV was improper. The Division withdrew that bulletin effective 24 January 2025 by Bulletin B 25-03, without issuing replacement guidance. Alaska now has no statute, regulation or standing bulletin addressing whether labor may be depreciated in an ACV calculation. Bulletin 93-08 describes ACV generally as the actual cost to purchase a comparable item including applicable taxes and fees, but it predates the labor question and does not resolve it.

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 labor depreciation, the Division of Insurance barred it in 2024 and withdrew that bulletin in 2025, so the question is unsettled.

No Alaska statute or regulation sets a deadline for releasing withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related labor question, the Division of Insurance issued Bulletin B 24-07 on May 7, 2024, barring labor depreciation in the definition of actual cash value on new and renewal policies. It withdrew that bulletin effective January 24, 2025, in Bulletin B 25-03. With no statute in play the policy is the whole of the law here, so read three things in it: what proof of completed repairs the insurer can require, how long the insured has to claim the withheld depreciation and whether that period can be extended in writing. Policy deadlines commonly run from 180 days to two years from the date of loss and they are enforced as written. Ask for the extension before the period runs rather than after.

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

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

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

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

On state highway projects, the Alaska DOT&PF Standard Specifications for Highway Construction allow a contractor to be compensated by equitable adjustment for a suspension, delay or interruption only if (1) it lasts an unreasonable time under the circumstances and another contract section allows compensation for what actually caused it, or (2) it results from the Department's failure to meet a contractual obligation on time. A suspension imposed for a reasonable time is not compensated. Delays from unforeseeable causes beyond the contractor's control, such as unusually severe weather, earn a time extension but no added compensation. A claim requires written notice of intent within 20 days of the event, costs incurred more than 20 days before that notice are excluded and no profit is allowed on the added cost. Alaska courts have not settled how general no-damages-for-delay clauses are treated outside highway contracts.

Citation: Alaska DOT&PF Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2020 ed.) § 108-1.06(3)-(4)

Source: https://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/dcsspecs/assets/pdf/hwyspecs/sshc2020.pdf

These rules come from the DOT&PF highway specifications, which are incorporated into state highway contracts, not from general construction law. The project's special provisions can modify them. For any non-highway Alaska project, confirm the position with counsel.

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, among the shortest in the country. The statute itself allows the parties to waive the provision by contract. Two deadlines sit in front of that one on most construction claims. A mechanic's lien and a payment bond claim each run on their own, far shorter clock, counted from last furnishing rather than from breach and missing either one removes the security while leaving the contract claim alive but unsecured. Check those dates first. Accrual is the other half of the question: the period runs from breach, which on a payment dispute is usually the date payment came due rather than the date the work was done.

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: 2026-09-17

A new employer without four quarters of wage history in the 12-quarter rating period is assigned its industry rate instead of an experience rate (AS 23.20.170, AS 23.20.280). For construction (NAICS 23) the 2026 industry rate is 1.00% employer plus 0.50% employee. Every industry sits at 1.00% for 2026 because the non-penalty rate classes are 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

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Pure comparative fault, no bar; recovery reduced by the worker's share of fault

Recovery is reduced in proportion to the worker's share of fault, with no threshold that cuts it off. A worker 90% at fault still recovers 10% of the damages.

Citation: Alaska Stat. § 09.17.060 (effect of contributory fault); § 09.17.080 (apportionment); Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037 (Alaska 1975)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-9/chapter-17/section-09-17-060/

Verified against: statute text of Alaska Stat. s 09.17.060

Non-economic damages cap

Non-economic damages capped at $400,000

The greater of $400,000 or the claimant’s life expectancy in years × $8,000. Raised to $1,000,000 (or life expectancy × $25,000) for severe permanent physical impairment or severe disfigurement.

Citation: Alaska Stat. § 09.17.010

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. A state plan must be at least as effective as federal OSHA and may set stricter standards, so check the state rule before assuming the federal text applies. It also covers state and local government employees, which federal OSHA does not, so a public works injury is inside the state agency's jurisdiction. Citations are issued by the state agency and contested before the state's own review body rather than the federal commission, which changes where the file lives when you go looking for it. Reporting deadlines follow the federal rule: a work-related fatality within 8 hours, an inpatient hospitalisation, amputation or loss of an eye within 24 hours. For a construction claim the inspection file matters more than the citation: photographs, measurements, witness statements and the inspector's narrative are usually obtainable and are often the best contemporaneous record of the site.

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

OSHA violations may be treated as negligence per se, but only within a genuine employment relationship, not for an independent contractor

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. Evidence rather than negligence per se means the violation goes to the jury as one fact among several. The worker still proves duty, breach, causation and damages in the ordinary way and the defendant can argue the standard did not apply to it, that the cited condition did not cause this injury, or that the citation was contested or withdrawn. The reverse is also true: compliance with OSHA is not a defence, since the standards are a floor rather than a definition of reasonable care.

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

Project owners and contractors above the direct employer share its exclusive-remedy protection under AS 23.30.045(a) and AS 23.30.055, which bars the injured worker's negligence suit against them.

AS 23.30.055 makes workers' compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer. Amendments in 2004 made project owners and contractors above a subcontractor-employer responsible for securing compensation under AS 23.30.045(a) and gave them the same exclusive-remedy defense. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld those amendments in Burke v. Criterion General, Inc., 499 P.3d 319 (Alaska 2021). It held in Nelson v. Municipality of Anchorage that a municipality can qualify as a project owner.

Citation: AS 23.30.045(a), 23.30.055; Burke v. Criterion General, Inc., 499 P.3d 319 (Alaska 2021); Nelson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 267 P.3d 636 (Alaska 2011)

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

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Intentional-tort exception, with a stiff burden: the worker must show a genuine intent to injure. Gross negligence or knowingly sending a worker into danger is not enough.

AS 23.30.055 makes workers' compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer and fellow employees. In Elliott v. Brown, the Alaska Supreme Court allowed a worker to sue a fellow employee who assaulted him, reasoning that the compensation law should not shield an intentional wrongdoer; it did not hold the corporate employer liable for that employee's act. In Van Biene v. ERA Helicopters, Inc., the court described the exception as reaching intentional torts by a fellow employee or the employer. It placed a stiff burden on the worker to show intent to harm. It held that allegations of gross negligence and wilful, knowing violation of safety regulations (dispatching exhausted pilots on a night flight) fall short of the actual intention to injure required. It affirmed dismissal. Exclusivity also does not protect an employer that fails to secure required coverage.

Citation: AS 23.30.055; Elliott v. Brown, 569 P.2d 1323 (Alaska 1977); Van Biene v. ERA Helicopters, Inc., 779 P.2d 315, 318-19 (Alaska 1989)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/1977/2835-1.html

Distinctive state doctrine

Statutory immunity for design professionals, lost in three situations: a contract assuming site safety, actual control of the premises or negligent design that contributed to the injury

AS 23.30.017 protects a design professional (a person licensed under AS 08.48 as an architect, engineer or land surveyor) from third-party liability for an injury covered by workers' compensation. The protection does not apply where the design professional (1) specifically assumed responsibility for job site safety practices under a contract, (2) actually exercised control over the premises where the injury occurred or (3) prepared design plans or specifications that contributed to the injury and were prepared negligently, recklessly or with intentional misconduct. The exclusivity bar cannot be waived by contract, but contractual indemnity is not precluded. Protection for project owners and upstream contractors is covered in the third-party entry above.

Citation: AS § 23.30.017(a)-(c)

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