Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 21.42.230 (2026)
Construction of policies
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 21.42.230. Construction of policies.
Each insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set out in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by a rider, endorsement, or application that is a part of the policy.
Each insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set out in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by a rider, endorsement, or application that is a part of the policy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case: O'Neill Investigations, Inc. v. Illinois Employers Ins. of Wausau, 636 P.2d 1170 (Alaska 1981).
O'Neill Investigations, Inc. v. Illinois Employers Ins. of Wausau, 636 P.2d 1170 (Alaska 1981). “See also AS 21.42.230, which provides that insurance contracts should be construed according to their entirety.”
Stordahl v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 564 P.2d 63 (Alaska 1977). “See also AS 21.42.230 which provides that insurance contracts should be construed according to their entirety.”
C.P. Ex Rel. M.L. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 P.2d 1216 (Alaska 2000). “See also AS 21.42.230 (providing "[e]ach insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set out in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by a rider, endorsement, or application that is a part of the policy").”
Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Bussell, 498 P.2d 706 (Alaska 1972). “AS 21.42.230 provides : Construction of policies.”
Kim v. Nat'l Indem. Co., 6 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2000). “AS 21.42.230. 6 . See Fejes, 984 P.2d at 522-24 ; Jones v.”
Sycks v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. (D. Alaska 2023). “§ 21.42.230 expressly allows a “rider, endorsement, or application that is part of the policy” to “amplif[y], extend[], or modif[y]” an insurance contract.”
Hinkle v. Crum & Forster Holding, Inc., 747 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Alaska 2010). “CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 161, regarding insurance policy defenses, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 140, regarding the improper settlement of the Bilodeaus’ claims with Hinkles, are hereby…”
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.