Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (2026)
Actionable claims against the state
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 09.50.250. Actionable claims against the state.
A person or corporation having a contract, quasi-contract, or tort claim against the state may bring an action against the state in a state court that has jurisdiction over the claim. A person who may present the claim under AS 44.77 may not bring an action under this section except as set out in AS 44.77.040(c). A person who may bring an action under AS 36.30.560 — 36.30.695 may not bring an action under this section except as set out in AS 36.30.685. However, an action may not be brought if the claim
(1) is an action for tort, and is based upon an act or omission of an employee of the state exercising due care in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not the statute or regulation is valid; or is an action for tort, and based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state agency or an employee of the state, whether or not the discretion involved is abused;
(2) is for damages caused by the imposition or establishment of, or the failure to impose or establish, a quarantine or isolation, or by other actions, by the state or its agents, officers, or employees under AS 18.15.355 — 18.15.395, except for damages caused by negligent medical treatment provided under AS 18.15.355 — 18.15.395 by a state employee, or except that, if a state employee quarantines or isolates a person with gross negligence or in intentional violation of AS 18.15.385, the state shall pay to the person who was quarantined or isolated a penalty of $500 for each day of the improper quarantine;
(3) arises out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights;
(4) arises out of the use of an ignition interlock device certified under AS 33.05.020(c); or
(5) arises out of injury, illness, or death of a seaman that occurs or manifests itself during or in the course of, or arises out of, employment with the state; AS 23.30 provides the exclusive remedy for such a claim, and no action may be brought against the state, its vessels, or its employees under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. 30104 — 30105), in admiralty, or under the general maritime law.
A person or corporation having a contract, quasi-contract, or tort claim against the state may bring an action against the state in a state court that has jurisdiction over the claim. A person who may present the claim under AS 44.77 may not bring an action under this section except as set out in AS 44.77.040(c). A person who may bring an action under AS 36.30.560 — 36.30.695 may not bring an action under this section except as set out in AS 36.30.685. However, an action may not be brought if the claim
(1) is an action for tort, and is based upon an act or omission of an employee of the state exercising due care in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not the statute or regulation is valid; or is an action for tort, and based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state agency or an employee of the state, whether or not the discretion involved is abused;
(2) is for damages caused by the imposition or establishment of, or the failure to impose or establish, a quarantine or isolation, or by other actions, by the state or its agents, officers, or employees under AS 18.15.355 — 18.15.395, except for damages caused by negligent medical treatment provided under AS 18.15.355 — 18.15.395 by a state employee, or except that, if a state employee quarantines or isolates a person with gross negligence or in intentional violation of AS 18.15.385, the state shall pay to the person who was quarantined or isolated a penalty of $500 for each day of the improper quarantine;
(3) arises out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights;
(4) arises out of the use of an ignition interlock device certified under AS 33.05.020(c); or
(5) arises out of injury, illness, or death of a seaman that occurs or manifests itself during or in the course of, or arises out of, employment with the state; AS 23.30 provides the exclusive remedy for such a claim, and no action may be brought against the state, its vessels, or its employees under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. 30104 — 30105), in admiralty, or under the general maritime law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001).
Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001). “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused"); Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (1) (Michie 2000)…”
Kuebel v. Dep't of Wildlife & Fisheries, 14 So. 3d 20 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “Pfander, supra, at 8-9 (citing Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (5), 2003 Alaska Sess.”
Cauley v. City of Jacksonville, 403 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1981). “Const. art. XIII, § 4 (liability limited to $100,000); Iowa Tort Claims Act, Iowa Code ch.”
Marrapese v. Rhode Island, 500 F. Supp. 1207 (D.R.I. 1980). “Alaska - Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 , enacted 1965; jurisdiction in state superior court.”
Calhoun v. City of Providence, 390 A.2d 350 (R.I. 1978). “See Alaska Stat. §09.50.250 ; 1976 Haw. Rev. Stat.”
Helton v. Knox Cnty., Tenn., 922 S.W.2d 877 (Tenn. 1996). “See Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (1)(1962). In finding that the decision not to install guardrails was a discretionary function, the court stated: [This] type[] of decision[] involve[s] planning, an assessment of competing priorities, and a weighing of budgetary considerations.”
184 Windsor Avenue, LLC. v. State, 875 A.2d 498 (Conn. 2005). “Code § 32-12-02 (2005) (“[a]n action respecting the title to property, or arising upon contract, may be brought in the district court against the state the same as against a private person”); N.”
Port Of Bellingham v. State Of Alaska, 374 P.3d 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 . But the State of Alaska withdrew that waiver of sovereign immunity for claims arising out of injuries to state-employed seamen in 2003: A person or corporation having a contract, quasi-contract, or tort claim against the state may bring an action…”
Chaabouni v. City of Boston, 133 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D. Mass. 2001). “§ 2680 (h) (1976), and an analogous Alaskan statute, Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (1973). Id. The court observed: Those authorities are divided in defining the scope of actions which are excluded by statute from a waiver of sovereign immunity.”
Chase Home for Child. v. New Hampshire Div. for Child., Youth & Families, 34 A.3d 1195 (N.H. 2011). “, Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (Lexis 2010); Ky.”
Ortiz v. Cnty. of Hampden, 449 N.E.2d 1227 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). “§ 2680 (h) [1976]), and an analogous State act ( Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 [1973]). Those authorities are divided in defining the scope of actions which are excluded by statute from a waiver of sovereign immunity.”
Nieting v. Blondell, 235 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 1975). “11 Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (1973); Hawaii Rev.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.