Alaska Stat. » Chapter 21.36
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125 (2026)

Unfair claim settlement practices

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 21.36.125. Unfair claim settlement practices.
 (a) A person may not commit any of the following acts or practices:
     (1) misrepresent facts or policy provisions relating to coverage of an insurance policy;

     (2) fail to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications regarding a claim arising under an insurance policy;

     (3) fail to adopt and implement reasonable standards for prompt investigation of claims;

     (4) refuse to pay a claim without a reasonable investigation of all of the available information and an explanation of the basis for denial of the claim or for an offer of compromise settlement;

     (5) fail to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time of the completion of proof-of-loss statements;

     (6) fail to attempt in good faith to make prompt and equitable settlement of claims in which liability is reasonably clear;

     (7) engage in a pattern or practice of compelling insureds to litigate for recovery of amounts due under insurance policies by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by those insureds;

     (8) compel an insured or third-party claimant in a case in which liability is clear to litigate for recovery of an amount due under an insurance policy by offering an amount that does not have an objectively reasonable basis in law and fact and that has not been documented in the insurer's file;

     (9) attempt to make an unreasonably low settlement by reference to printed advertising matter accompanying or included in an application;

     (10) attempt to settle a claim on the basis of an application that has been altered without the consent of the insured;

     (11) make a claims payment without including a statement of the coverage under which the payment is made;

     (12) make known to an insured or third-party claimant a policy of appealing from an arbitration award in favor of an insured or third-party claimant for the purpose of compelling the insured or third-party claimant to accept a settlement or compromise less than the amount awarded in arbitration;

     (13) delay investigation or payment of claims by requiring submission of unnecessary or substantially repetitive claims reports and proof-of-loss forms;

     (14) fail to promptly settle claims under one portion of a policy for the purpose of influencing settlements under other portions of the policy;

     (15) fail to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement; or

     (16) offer a form of settlement or pay a judgment in any manner prohibited by AS 21.96.030;

     (17) violate a provision contained in AS 21.07.

 (b) The provisions of this section do not create or imply a private cause of action for a violation of this section.

 (c) The director of insurance shall adopt regulations to implement, define, and enforce this section.




Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Crawford & Co. v. Baker-Withrow, 81 P.3d 982 (Alaska 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crawford & Co. v. Baker-Withrow, 81 P.3d 982 (Alaska 2003). · cites it 24× “Upon receiving notice the division must determine *983 whether the insurer has committed an unfair claim settlement practice under AS 21.36.125. The question presented here is whether a board determination of unfair controversion is a final appealable order.”
O.K. Lumber Co. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 759 P.2d 523 (Alaska 1988). · cites it 6× “asserts three theories of relief based on its prior dealings with Providence Washington: (1) breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violation of the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, AS 21.36.125; and (3) violation of the Unfair Trade Practices…”
McDonnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 P.3d 715 (Alaska 2013). · cites it 3× “She specifically argues that the two-year contractual limitation provision violates AS 21.36.125(a)(1) (which prohibits "misrepresenting] facts or policy provisions relating to coverage of an insurance policy"), AS 21.”
Lockwood v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 323 P.3d 691 (Alaska 2014). · cites it 3× “Lockwood also argues that the "record evidence raises fact issues about whether [Geico] violated various provisions of AS 21.36.125 with its pattern of conduct in delaying payment.”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dooley, 243 P.3d 197 (Alaska 2010). · cites it 5× “[4] AS 21.36.125 is Alaska's Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act.”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nicholson, 777 P.2d 1152 (Alaska 1989). · cites it 2× “Under AS 21.36.125, entitled “Unfair claims settlement practices,” an insurance company only violates the chapter if it engages in certain proscribed acts “with such frequency as to indicate a practice.”
Draggin' Y Cattle Co. v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 439 P.3d 935 (Mont. 2019). “See Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125 (b) (2018) ("The provisions of this section do not create or imply a private cause of action for a violation of this section.”
Peter v. Schumacher Enter., Inc., 22 P.3d 481 (Alaska 2001). “we held that a third-party claimant does not have a private claim against an insurance company under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, AS 21.36.125. 24 In so holding we noted that the act prohibited repeated practices, not a single incident of misconduct, and therefore…”
Sauer v. Home Indem. Co., 841 P.2d 176 (Alaska 1992). “” AS 21.36.125. Prompt notice of the basis for the denial of coverage or a defense is necessary to avoid prejudice to the insured which may result from delays in the insured undertaking its own defense or from delays in gathering evidence essential to successfully challenge the…”
Ace v. Aetna Life Ins., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Alaska 1999). · cites it 3× “36 Although various impediments to the enforcement of AS 21.36.125 may render it inappropriate to rely on the existence of the statutory provision to deter and punish all who violate the standards set, it is appropriate to consider the quantum of punishment which the legislature…”
Jones v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 937 P.2d 1360 (Alaska 1997). “(quoting AS 21.36.125). Notice is necessary to avoid prejudice to the insured “which may result from delays in the insured undertaking its own defense or from delays in gathering evidence essential to successfully challenge the denial of coverage or a defense.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Weiford, 831 P.2d 1264 (Alaska 1992). “18 stated: AS 21.36.125 provides that an insurance company may not commit or engage in with such frequency as to indicate a practice any of the following acts or practices: (1) Fail to attempt in good faith to make prompt and equitable settlement of claims in which liability is…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(14) — 1 case
O.K. Lumber Co. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 759 P.2d 523 (Alaska 1988). “asserts three theories of relief based on its prior dealings with Providence Washington: (1) breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violation of the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, AS 21.36.125; and (3) violation of the Unfair Trade Practices…”
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(2) — 1 case
Ace v. Aetna Life Ins., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Alaska 1999). “36 Although various impediments to the enforcement of AS 21.36.125 may render it inappropriate to rely on the existence of the statutory provision to deter and punish all who violate the standards set, it is appropriate to consider the quantum of punishment which the legislature…”
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(3) — 1 case
O.K. Lumber Co. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 759 P.2d 523 (Alaska 1988). “asserts three theories of relief based on its prior dealings with Providence Washington: (1) breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violation of the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, AS 21.36.125; and (3) violation of the Unfair Trade Practices…”
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(6) — 1 case
Crawford & Co. v. Baker-Withrow, 81 P.3d 982 (Alaska 2003). “Upon receiving notice the division must determine *983 whether the insurer has committed an unfair claim settlement practice under AS 21.36.125. The question presented here is whether a board determination of unfair controversion is a final appealable order.”
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a) — 2 cases
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dooley, 243 P.3d 197 (Alaska 2010). “[4] AS 21.36.125 is Alaska's Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act.”
Leibold v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (D. Alaska 2019).
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(1) — 2 cases
McDonnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 P.3d 715 (Alaska 2013). “She specifically argues that the two-year contractual limitation provision violates AS 21.36.125(a)(1) (which prohibits "misrepresenting] facts or policy provisions relating to coverage of an insurance policy"), AS 21.”
Bernier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (D. Alaska 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(12) — 1 case
McDonnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 P.3d 715 (Alaska 2013). “She specifically argues that the two-year contractual limitation provision violates AS 21.36.125(a)(1) (which prohibits "misrepresenting] facts or policy provisions relating to coverage of an insurance policy"), AS 21.”
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(15) — 3 cases
United States v. CNA Fin. Corp., 381 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (D. Alaska 2005).
Moda Assurance Co. v. New Life Treatment Ctr. (D. Alaska 2025).
Ge Vue v. Walmart Assocs., INC., & New Hampshire Ins. Co., 474 P.3d 270 (Alaska 2020).
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(2) — 1 case
Moda Assurance Co. v. New Life Treatment Ctr. (D. Alaska 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(3) — 1 case
Sellers v. Kurdilla, 377 P.3d 33 (Alaska 2016).
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(4) — 1 case
Bernier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (D. Alaska 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(6) — 4 cases
Crawford & Co. v. Baker-Withrow, 81 P.3d 982 (Alaska 2003). “Upon receiving notice the division must determine *983 whether the insurer has committed an unfair claim settlement practice under AS 21.36.125. The question presented here is whether a board determination of unfair controversion is a final appealable order.”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dooley, 243 P.3d 197 (Alaska 2010). “[4] AS 21.36.125 is Alaska's Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act.”
Bernier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (D. Alaska 2025).
Ge Vue v. Walmart Assocs., INC., & New Hampshire Ins. Co., 474 P.3d 270 (Alaska 2020).
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(7) — 1 case
Bernier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (D. Alaska 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(a)(8) — 1 case
McDonnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 P.3d 715 (Alaska 2013). “She specifically argues that the two-year contractual limitation provision violates AS 21.36.125(a)(1) (which prohibits "misrepresenting] facts or policy provisions relating to coverage of an insurance policy"), AS 21.”
— Alaska Stat. § 21.36.125(b) — 4 cases
Lockwood v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 323 P.3d 691 (Alaska 2014). “Lockwood also argues that the "record evidence raises fact issues about whether [Geico] violated various provisions of AS 21.36.125 with its pattern of conduct in delaying payment.”
Crawford & Co. v. Baker-Withrow, 81 P.3d 982 (Alaska 2003). “Upon receiving notice the division must determine *983 whether the insurer has committed an unfair claim settlement practice under AS 21.36.125. The question presented here is whether a board determination of unfair controversion is a final appealable order.”
Tundra Mountain Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co. (D. Alaska 2023).
Zane Ulin v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.; Jane Susan Kurth; James Kurth also known as Janes M. Kurth & James Michael Kurth; the Est. of James Michael Kurth; Barry A. Cape; & one driver whose name is unknown, but whose name is believed to be known to Jane Susan Kurth (Alaska 2019).
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.