Return to Table of Contents

IV. Indemnity

Contractual indemnity is recognized by Alaska law. Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd. v. State, 777 P.2d 649 (Alaska 1989). In a construction contract, however, indemnity agreements protecting a party from its sole negligence or willful misconduct are contrary to public policy and will not be enforced. AS 45.45.900.

Alaska traditionally allowed implied indemnity by a non-negligent party against the party primarily responsible, for example in a product liability action. Koehring Mfg. Co. v. Earthmovers of Fairbanks, Inc., 763 P.2d 499 (Alaska 1988); Ross Laboratories v. Thies, 725 P.2d 1076 (Alaska 1986). In the absence of a contrary contractual provision, there is no implied indemnity among concurrently negligent tortfeasors, however. Vertecs Corp. v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 671 P.2d 1273 (Alaska 1983).

The Alaska court has held that equitable indemnity is no longer available as a remedy in Alaska, post tort reform. AVCP Regional Housing Authority v. R.A. Vranckaert Co., 47 P.3d 650 (Alaska 2002). The court continues to allow claims for implied contractual indemnity, e.g., in a products liability action, where the indemnitee (a) was not liable except vicariously for the tort of the indemnitor, or (b) was not liable except as a seller of a product supplied by the indemnitor and the indemnitee was not independently culpable. Id. The indemnitor must also have secured the release of the indemnitee. Id.