Alaska Punitive Damages Laws: Cap, Proof and State Share (2026)

Alaska allows punitive damages in civil cases under Alaska Statutes 09.17.020: the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct was outrageous or showed reckless indifference to the interest of another person, and an award generally may not exceed the greater of three times the compensatory damages or $500,000. A higher limit applies to conduct motivated by financial gain whose adverse consequences were actually known to the defendant or its policy maker, and separate fixed caps apply to unlawful employment practice claims against employers.

Alaska also takes half: under 09.17.020(j), the court must require that 50 percent of any punitive award be deposited into the state general fund. Judgments against the State itself carry no punitive damages, and the Alaska Supreme Court has held that they are not available against a municipality absent statutory authorization. In wrongful death cases, the same court has held that punitive damages are available under AS 09.55.580. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-19. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Alaska state law on punitive damages in civil cases: AS 09.17.020 and the other Alaska statutes and Alaska Supreme Court decisions named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages limits (see Alaska medical malpractice law for health care claims), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Alaska wrongful death law), federal claims, or every statute that authorizes punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.

Does Alaska allow punitive damages?

Yes. AS 09.17.020 applies "in an action in which a claim of punitive damages is presented to the fact finder." It sets out the standard of proof, a two-step trial procedure, three sets of caps, a rule for employers sued over an employee's conduct, and the state's 50 percent share.

Other statutes fill in the edges. Punitive damages are itemized separately in personal injury verdicts, earn no prejudgment interest, are barred in judgments against the State, and can be awarded by an arbitrator only where a court could award them on the same claim. Each is covered below.

What a plaintiff must prove

Section 09.17.020(b) sets both the conduct standard and the burden of proof:

"The fact finder may make an award of punitive damages only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct (1) was outrageous, including acts done with malice or bad motives; or (2) evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person."

The two routes are alternatives: outrageous conduct (which includes acts done with malice or bad motives), or reckless indifference to another person's interest. Either must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in Alaska?

Yes, with three tiers. Which one applies depends on the claim and on what the fact finder decides about the defendant's motive.

The general cap. Under 09.17.020(f), "except as provided in (g) and (h) of this section, an award of punitive damages may not exceed the greater of (1) three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff in the action; or (2) the sum of $500,000."

Conduct motivated by financial gain. Subsection (g) raises the limit when the fact finder determines "that the conduct proven under (b) of this section was motivated by financial gain and the adverse consequences of the conduct were actually known by the defendant or the person responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant." The award may then not exceed the greatest of:

• four times the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff in the action;
• four times "the aggregate amount of financial gain that the defendant received as a result of the defendant's misconduct"; or
• $7,000,000.

Both conditions are required: a financial motive, and adverse consequences actually known to the defendant or its policy maker.

Employment discrimination claims. Subsection (h) applies "notwithstanding any other provision of law" to "an action against an employer to recover damages for an unlawful employment practice prohibited by AS 18.80.220." The caps turn on the employer's number of employees in Alaska:

Subsection (i) adds that subsection (h) "may not be construed to allow an award of punitive damages against the state or a person immune under another provision of law." Separately, under AS 18.80.130(a), which governs orders of the State Commission for Human Rights, "the commission may not order an award of noneconomic or punitive damages in a case."

No drunk-driving or intentional-tort exception. AS 09.17.020 contains no separate cap rule for drunk driving, intentional torts or any other category of conduct; subsections (f), (g) and (h) are its only cap provisions. For the rest of a vehicle crash claim, see Alaska car accident law.

Claim-specific limits in other statutes. Some statutes for particular claims set their own measure:

• Trade secrets. "If wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice the damages awarded under (a) of this section" (AS 45.50.915(b)).
• A crime victim's employer. A victim who suffers a pecuniary loss from an employer's act prohibited by AS 12.61.017 "may bring a civil action to recover actual damages and punitive damages of three times the actual damages sustained" (12.61.017(c)).
• False certificates about nonpermanent employees. A person who makes a false certificate under AS 39.25.195 is personally liable "for punitive damages of an amount not to exceed three times the gross monthly salary at which the nonpermanent employee was appointed" (AS 39.25.198).
• Registered marks. In an infringement action, "the court may also enter judgment for punitive damages in an amount not to exceed three times the profits and damages" (AS 45.50.180(b)).

The U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply to Alaska verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them.

Does Alaska take a share of the award?

Yes, half. Section 09.17.020(j) provides:

"If a person receives an award of punitive damages, the court shall require that 50 percent of the award be deposited into the general fund of the state. This subsection does not grant the state the right to file or join a civil action to recover punitive damages."

Attorney's fees come off the full award. Under AS 09.60.080, when an attorney collects a contingency fee in an action for personal injury, death or property damage and the award includes punitive damages, "the contingent fee due the attorney shall be calculated before that portion of punitive damages due the state under AS 09.17.020 (j) has been deducted from the total award of damages."

Consumer protection claims. The same 50 percent rule applies to a punitive award in a private action under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act: "If a person receives an award of punitive damages under (a) of this section, the court shall require that 50 percent of the award be deposited into the general fund of the state under AS 09.17.020 (j)" (AS 45.50.531(i)).

The constitutional challenge. In Evans ex rel. Kutch v. State, 56 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2002), the Alaska Supreme Court rejected facial challenges to the 1997 tort reform law (chapter 26, SLA 1997), which included both the punitive damages cap and the 50 percent rule. With one justice not participating, the court was equally divided on the 50 percent rule, so on that issue the decision affirmed the lower court in that case but, in the court's words, "will not be binding in future cases." Two justices would have held the 50 percent rule unconstitutional. The challenge to the punitive damages cap drew a majority and was rejected, so that holding binds future cases. The plurality opinion concluded: "we reject the plaintiffs' facial challenges and hold that the challenged provisions of chapter 26, SLA 1997 are facially constitutional under the Alaska and United States Constitutions." On the takings argument, the plurality reasoned that "if AS 09.17.020(j) is construed as a cap on punitive damages, limiting them before they are awarded to successful plaintiffs, no constitutional problem exists."

How the amount is decided

Two steps, one fact finder. Under 09.17.020(a), the fact finder decides "concurrently with all other issues presented" whether punitive damages are allowed. "If punitive damages are allowed, a separate proceeding under (c) of this section shall be conducted before the same fact finder to determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded."

Seven factors. At that separate proceeding, the fact finder may consider (09.17.020(c)):

1. the likelihood at the time of the conduct that serious harm would arise from it;
2. the defendant's awareness of that likelihood;
3. the financial gain the defendant gained or expected to gain from the conduct;
4. the duration of the conduct and any intentional concealment of it;
5. the defendant's attitude and conduct upon discovery of the conduct;
6. the defendant's financial condition; and
7. the total deterrence of other damages and punishment imposed on the defendant for the conduct, including compensatory and punitive awards to persons in similar situations and the severity of criminal penalties the defendant has faced or may face.

The fact finder then sets the amount, "and the court shall enter judgment for that amount" (09.17.020(d)).

Financial evidence waits. Unless it is relevant to another issue in the case, discovery of evidence about the defendant's financial gain or financial condition "may not be conducted until after the fact finder has determined that an award of punitive damages is allowed" (09.17.020(e)).

No pleading permission rule in the statute. AS 09.17.020 does not require a plaintiff to obtain court permission or make an evidentiary showing before pleading punitive damages.

Itemized verdicts. "In every case where damages for personal injury are awarded by the court or jury," the verdict must be itemized, and punitive damages are a separate line (AS 09.17.040(a)(5)).

No prejudgment interest. "Prejudgment interest may not be awarded for future economic damages, future noneconomic damages, or punitive damages" (AS 09.30.070(c)).

Arbitration. "An arbitrator may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if the award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim" (AS 09.43.480(a)).

When an employer is liable for an employee's conduct

An employer that is only vicariously liable for an employee's act or omission does not automatically face punitive damages. Under 09.17.020(k), punitive damages may not be awarded against the employer on that basis unless:

• the employer or its managerial agent authorized the act or omission and the manner in which it occurred, or ratified or approved it afterward; or
• the employee was unfit to perform the act or avoid the omission and the employer or its managerial agent acted recklessly in employing or retaining the employee; or
• the employee was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting within the scope of employment.

Claims against the State and municipalities

AS 09.50.280 provides that in an action against the state, "if judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, it shall be for the legal amount found due from the state with interest as provided under AS 09.30.070 and without punitive damages."

Municipalities are treated the same way by case law. In Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 718 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1986), the Alaska Supreme Court held that "in the absence of statutory authorization punitive damages are not available against a municipality, irrespective of the nature of the conduct involved."

Punitive damages in Alaska wrongful death cases

The wrongful death statute does not mention punitive damages, but the Alaska Supreme Court has held that they are available under it. AS 09.55.580 provides that "the damages therein shall be the damages the court or jury may consider fair and just," and that the court or jury "shall consider all the facts and circumstances and from them fix the award at a sum which will fairly compensate for the injury resulting from the death." The Alaska Supreme Court has read that "fair and just" language to allow punitive damages. In Tommy's Elbow Room, Inc. v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038 (Alaska 1986), it held that the wrongful death statute allows a claim for punitive damages "when there is clear evidence that the wrongdoer acted maliciously, fraudulently, or with a wanton disregard for the decedent's safety." In Portwood v. Copper Valley Electric Ass'n, 785 P.2d 541 (Alaska 1990), it held that punitive damages are available even when the decedent is not survived by a spouse, child or other dependents: "Because punitive damages are not compensatory they are not subject to the pecuniary loss limitation" that applies in that situation. Both decisions predate the 1997 version of AS 09.17.020, which applies "in an action in which a claim of punitive damages is presented to the fact finder." Who may sue, the deadlines and the compensatory damages in a death case are on the Alaska wrongful death page.

Does insurance pay punitive damages in Alaska?

No Alaska statute answers the question generally. The Alaska Supreme Court decisions below turn on the type of insured and the wording of the policy.

Municipalities. In Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. City of Valdez, 684 P.2d 861 (Alaska 1984), the court wrote: "Assuming, without deciding, that public policy in Alaska would prohibit liability insurance coverage for punitive damages, we hold that such a policy would not prohibit municipal corporations from insuring against punitive damage awards. Such awards are incurred in the performance of public functions and, if uninsured, would fall on the innocent taxpayers." Two years later, in Hazen (1986), the court held that punitive damages are not available against a municipality absent statutory authorization.

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 26 P.3d 1074 (Alaska 2001), the court held that auto liability policies promising to "pay damages which an insured becomes legally liable to pay," with no specific exclusion, "provide coverage for the Lawrences own punitive damages." Because the liability coverage included punitive damages, the policies' UM/UIM coverage also covered punitive damages owed by an underinsured driver, and the court added that "public policy does not forbid this result." It also relied on the policies excluding punitive damages only in the medical payments section.

Alaska statutes provide that required UM/UIM coverage "need not provide coverage for punitive damages that might otherwise be recoverable from an uninsured or underinsured person" (AS 28.20.445(e)(4); see also AS 21.96.020 and 28.22.101). Those provisions permit a policy to leave punitive damages out of UM/UIM coverage; whether a given policy covers them depends on its terms.

Defense counsel. A punitive damages claim against an insured does not by itself create a conflict of interest requiring the insurer to provide independent counsel: AS 21.96.100(b)(1) lists "a claim of punitive damages" among the things that "do not constitute a conflict of interest."

Alaska punitive damages at a glance

Recent changes

AS 09.17.020 appears in the 2025 edition of the Alaska Statutes in the form described on this page. The leading decision on it remains the 2002 Evans decision, which upheld the cap against a facial challenge and, by an equally divided court, left the 50 percent state share in place without binding precedent.

Related pages

• Punitive damages laws by state
• Alaska wrongful death law
• Alaska medical malpractice law
• Alaska car accident law

This article provides general legal information about Alaska punitive damages law as of 2026-10-19. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Alaska.

Last updated: 2026-10-19.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Alaska allow punitive damages?

Yes. AS 09.17.020 allows a fact finder to award punitive damages if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct was outrageous, including acts done with malice or bad motives, or evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person. They are not available in a judgment against the State (AS 09.50.280) or, absent statutory authorization, against a municipality (Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 1986).

What is the cap on punitive damages in Alaska?

Generally the greater of three times the compensatory damages awarded or $500,000 (AS 09.17.020(f)). For conduct motivated by financial gain whose adverse consequences were actually known to the defendant or its policy maker, the limit is the greatest of four times compensatory damages, four times the defendant's financial gain, or $7,000,000 (09.17.020(g)). Unlawful employment practice claims under AS 18.80.220 have their own $200,000 to $500,000 caps by employer size (09.17.020(h)), and some statutes for particular claims set their own limits.

Does Alaska take part of a punitive damages award?

Yes. Under AS 09.17.020(j), the court must require that 50 percent of a punitive damages award be deposited into the state general fund. The State gets no right to file or join the lawsuit, and under AS 09.60.080 a plaintiff's attorney's contingent fee in a personal injury, death or property damage case is calculated before the state's half is deducted.

Is there an exception to the Alaska punitive damages cap for drunk driving?

AS 09.17.020 contains no separate cap rule for drunk driving or intentional torts; its only variations are the financial-gain limit in subsection (g) and the employment-practice caps in subsection (h).

Are punitive damages available in an Alaska wrongful death case?

Yes. AS 09.55.580 does not mention punitive damages, but the Alaska Supreme Court held in Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian (1986) that its fair and just damages language allows them, and in Portwood v. Copper Valley Electric Ass'n (1990) that they are available even when the decedent leaves no spouse, children or other dependents. AS 09.17.020 governs any action in which a punitive damages claim is presented to the fact finder.

Are punitive damages available against the State of Alaska?

No. Under AS 09.50.280, a judgment for a plaintiff in an action against the state is for the legal amount found due, with interest, and without punitive damages. Under Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage (1986), punitive damages are also not available against a municipality absent statutory authorization.

Does insurance cover punitive damages in Alaska?

No Alaska statute answers the question generally. In Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. City of Valdez (1984), the Alaska Supreme Court held that even assuming public policy bars liability coverage for punitive damages, it would not stop municipalities from insuring against them. In State Farm v. Lawrence (2001), the court held that auto liability policies that did not specifically exclude punitive damages covered the insureds' own punitive damages. Required uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage need not include punitive damages (AS 28.20.445(e)(4)), so whether a policy covers them depends on its terms.

Who decides the amount of punitive damages in Alaska?

The fact finder. After it decides that punitive damages are allowed, a separate proceeding before the same fact finder determines the amount using seven factors in AS 09.17.020(c), including the likelihood of serious harm, the defendant's awareness of it, any financial gain and the defendant's financial condition, and the court enters judgment for that amount.