State Snapshot
BASIC RULE
In Alaska, workers’ compensation is an employee’s sole legal remedy for a work-related injury. Alaska Statutes § 23.30.055. This is the “exclusiveness of liability” provision (or “exclusive liability” provision). The rule means that an injured employee cannot sue his employer in tort (which would expose the employer to liability for monetary damages).
The rule also applies to family members of the injured employee; the rule bars them from filing derivative tort suits, such as wrongful death claims, against the employer.
TORT LAWSUITS AGAINST CO-EMPLOYEES
The workers’ compensation statute extends exclusivity to “any fellow employee.” Thus, an injured employee generally cannot sue a co-employee for negligence.
INTENTIONAL INJURIES
If an employer or co-worker acts with specific intent to injure the employee, exclusivity may not apply, and the employee may be able to bring a tort action. Alaska courts apply a high standard for intentional harm exceptions. It’s usually not enough to show that the employer was grossly negligent or deliberately disregarded safety regulations.
Alaska has not adopted the “substantial certainty” test used in some other jurisdictions. Thus, an employee generally cannot defeat exclusivity merely by showing that the employer knew an injury was highly likely.
THIRD-PARTY CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS
A negligent third party sued in tort by an injured employee cannot seek contribution from the employer. This is true even if the employer’s negligence primarily caused the accident.
If the employee recovers damages from a third party, the employer (or workers’ comp insurer) typically holds statutory subrogation rights to recover workers’ compensation benefits paid out to the injured employee.
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
The exclusivity rule can extend beyond the employee’s immediate employer to protect a contractor. This is particularly relevant in the construction business.
THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS
The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to lawsuits against third parties, such as product manufacturers and negligent drivers. For example, if the employee is struck by a car driven by a member of the public while the employee is on the clock, the rule does not bar the lawsuit against the driver. To take another example, if an employee is injured during work by defective equipment that is manufactured by another company, the employee may still sue that other company.
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN INSURANCE
If the employer fails to carry required workers’ compensation insurance (or maintain self-insurance approval), the exclusive liability provision no longer protects them. The injured worker may elect to either file a workers’ compensation claim or
RECENT CASES
State v. Lane, 5542 P.3d 1124 (Alaska 2024)
An Office of Children’s Services caseworker alleged that a father sexually assaulted her. She said her employer retaliated against her and forced her resignation because she reported systemic failures to protect her from a dangerous client. The Alaska Supreme Court reaffirmed that the exclusive remedy provision ordinarily bars tort claims against an employer for damages arising from a covered workplace injury, including negligence claims relating to the injury. But the court distinguished claims based on retaliation or violation of public policy. An employer cannot use the statute as a shield against liability for independently prohibited conduct such as retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. “We conclude that Lane’s wrongful retaliation and discharge claims were not barred by the exclusive remedy of the workers’ compensation system,” the court wrote. It affirmed the lower court’s decision to allow her to proceed with those claims.
Estate of Molly Parks v. Petersburg Borough, 532 P.3d 1073 (Alaska 2023)
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a superior court decision dismissing a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the estate of 18-year-old Molly Parks, who was killed in a vehicle crash caused by her coworker, William Allen. Allen suffered a seizure while driving a Petersburg Borough van. Despite Allen’s history of seizure disorders, and explicit medical warnings to the Borough not to permit him to drive, the Borough assigned Allen to transport Parks and other employees. Parks’s estate claimed that the extreme recklessness exhibited by Allen and the Borough constituted constructive malice on par with an intentional tort. The claims were therefore not barred by the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive liability shield, the estate argued. The Supreme Court disagreed. It stated that the exclusivity bar can only be overcome by demonstrating a specific intent to cause injury. Criminal recklessness or gross negligence is not sufficient.
EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEARBY STATES
Oregon
