Alaska Stat. » Chapter 23.30
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 23.30.055 (2026)

Exclusiveness of liability

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 23.30.055. Exclusiveness of liability.
The liability of an employer prescribed in AS 23.30.045 is exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer and any fellow employee to the employee, the employee's legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the employer or fellow employee at law or in admiralty on account of the injury or death. The liability of the employer is exclusive even if the employee's claim is barred under AS 23.30.022. However, if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee or the employee's legal representative in case death results from the injury may elect to claim compensation under this chapter, or to maintain an action against the employer at law or in admiralty for damages on account of the injury or death. In that action, the defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, or that the employee assumed the risk of the employment, or that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee. In this section, “employer” includes, in addition to the meaning given in AS 23.30.395, a person who, under AS 23.30.045(a), is liable for or potentially liable for securing payment of compensation.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010). · cites it 17× “The fax transmittal that accompanied the offer of judgment stated that Alyeska "believe[d] the exclusive remedy protection of AS 23.30.055 applie[d] to this case." Anderson did not accept the offer.”
Cornelison v. TIG Ins., 376 P.3d 1255 (Alaska 2016). · cites it 10× “41 AS 23.30.055 (“The liability of an employer prescribed in AS 23.”
Leona Seal, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Nicholson J. Tinker v. Mark C. Welty d/b/a North Country Servs., 477 P.3d 613 (Alaska 2020). · cites it 22× “Michaelson drafted a release stating that the settlement agreement represented “an election pursuant to AS 23.30.055 to maintain a civil action against Mark Welty d/b/a North Country Services and David Michaelson.”
Grothe v. Olafson, 659 P.2d 602 (Alaska 1983). · cites it 13× “Did The Superior Court Err In Ruling That The Defense of Comparative Negligence Was Not Available? [15] In its final decision, the trial court ruled that under AS 23.30.055 and AS 23.30.080, Grothe was not entitled to assert the defense of comparative negligence to reduce…”
Burke v. Raven Elec., Inc., 420 P.3d 1196 (Alaska 2018). · cites it 5× “045 an employer is required to provide workers' compensation coverage for employees, and in return, AS 23.30.055 makes workers' compensation the employee's exclusive remedy.”
Nickels v. Napolilli, 29 P.3d 242 (Alaska 2001). · cites it 8× “18 If, on the other hand, an injured employee chooses to bring a lawsuit against the employer under AS 23.30.055, the workers' compensation statute enhances the opportunity for recovery and removes many of the limitations on compensation ordinarily imposed.”
Schiel v. Union Oil Co. of California, 219 P.3d 1025 (Alaska 2009). · cites it 7× “According to Schiel, AS 23.30.055 restricts his access to the courts by denying him the opportunity to bring a negligence action against the project owner and fails to provide an adequate alternative remedy for him to seek redress.”
Elliott v. Brown, 569 P.2d 1323 (Alaska 1977). · cites it 6× “AS 23.30.055 makes workmen's compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer for compensable injuries.”
Christianson v. Conrad-Houston Ins., 318 P.3d 390 (Alaska 2014). · cites it 6× “Consequently, a defendant raising the exclusive liability issue as a defense to the tort suit should have 45 The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive liability statute, AS 23.30.055, would have prevented Jones, a Titan employee who received workers’ compensation benefits…”
Nelson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 267 P.3d 636 (Alaska 2011). · cites it 4× “045(F); he asserts that, as a result, the exclusive remedy provision of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act does not shield the Municipality because AS 23.30.055 only protects those who are liable under AS 28.”
Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc., 127 P.3d 807 (Alaska 2005). · cites it 4× “" [52] Likewise, it would be nonsensical to allow an employer to rely on the exclusive remedy section, AS 23.30.055, to preclude damages stemming from a public *820 policy violation.”
Benner v. Wichman, 874 P.2d 949 (Alaska 1994). · cites it 5× “Benner thereafter moved for summary judgment, arguing that Wichman’s claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of AS 23.30.055, based on his assertion that he and Wichman were co-employees of B-C.”
Show all 86 citing cases →
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.