Return to Table of Contents

II. Choice of Law

1. On Torts
2. On Contracts

A. On Torts

In tort cases, Alaska courts have followed the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law in determining the applicable substantive law. Ehredt v. deHavilland Aircraft Co. of Canada, Ltd., 705 P.2d 446, 453 (Alaska 1985). Under the Restatement, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties in a personal injury action unless some other state has a more significant relationship to the occurrence and to the parties. Id. In other words, the court will apply the local law of the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence. Savage Arms, Inc. v. Western Auto Supply Co., 18 P.3d 49 (Alaska 2001).

B. On Contracts

Alaska courts have similarly looked to the principles set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law in resolving choice of law questions involving contracts. See Palmer G. Lewis Co. v. ARCO Chemical Co., 904 P.2d 1221, 1227 (Alaska 1995). Under the Restatement, the courts are directed to examine the location in which the contract was entered, negotiated, and performed and then apply the law of the state with "the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties." Id. at 1234 n.14. Generally, Alaska courts will apply the law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights. Id.; Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 902 F.2d 1400, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990). However, where the interest of Alaska is greater than that of the jurisdiction chosen by the parties, the court will disregard the parties' choice of law. E.g., Long v. Holland American Lines, 26 P.2d 430 (Alaska 2001).