Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070

Alaska's two-year residual period applies through New York's borrowing statute to federal securities-fraud claims brought by an Alaska resident.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,100 Donald J. Robertson v. Seidman & Seidman · filed 1979-08-29

the applicable statute of limitations was Alaska’s two year limitations period for “any injury to the person or rights of another not arising on contract.” Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070. … the district court properly determined, and the parties agreed, that the relevant Alaska statute of limitations should apply.

Section 09.10.070 supplies a two-year period for section 1983 claims arising in Alaska, whether treated as personal-injury actions or actions on a liability created by statute.

Denardo v. Patrick Murphy, Alaska Public Employees Association, State of Alaska · filed 1986-01-30

Under Alaska’s personal injury statute of limitation, De Nardo would have had two years in which to file his complaint. ... Since De Nardo’s claim arose from his termination in April 1978 and he did not file this action until June 1982, we find that his claim is barred by the statute of limitation.

Section 09.10.070's two-year tort period governs federal section 10(b) securities claims and state claims for fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty when Alaska's period is borrowed.

Farr Ex Rel. Estate of Farr v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. · filed 1991-01-21

The applicable Alaskan limitations period for a section 10(b) action is the two-year limitations period for “any injury to the person or rights of another not arising on contract.” Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070. ... Plaintiff’s state law claims for fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty are also governed by Alaska’s two-year statute of limitations for tort actions, Alaska Stat. 09.10.070. ... Accordingly, we hold that plaintiffs state law claims are barred because they were filed more than two years after May 1987.

Section 09.10.070 does not apply to Lucas’s equitable apportionment claim against OCS.

Dapo v. State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services and Taun Lucas · filed 2022-05-13

Given the time elapsed since the underlying events transpired, Dapo would likely have been barred from bringing his own claims against OCS by the two-year statute of limitations in AS 09.10.070, even allowing for tolling under AS 09.10.140(a). See Reasner v. State, Dep’t of Health &Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 394 P.3d 610, 614-18 (Alaska 2017) (discussing statute of limitations and holding that legislature did not remove limitations period for “negligence suits against non-perpetrators” when it allowed suits against alleged perpetrators of specified sexual offenses to be brought “at any time”). Lucas’s equitable apportionment claim against OCS, however, was not subject to the statute of limitations in AS 09.10.070. See Alaska Gen. Alarm, Inc. v. Grinnell, 1 P.3d 98, 106 (Alaska 2000).

Section 09.10.070's two-year tort period bars a plaintiff's direct action against another responsible party but does not govern a defendant's distinct third-party claim for apportionment.

Janitscheck v. United States · filed 2002-09-11

Alaska requires that litigants bring tort claims within two years after the injury occurs. Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070. … In other words, a defendant who seeks to allocate fault arising from the plaintiffs claim may bring an action against another potentially responsible party, even though the statute of limitations bars the plaintiff from suing that same party directly. … Because Plaintiff is now beyond the two-year period during which he could have sued the Architects directly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Architects.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit for tort claims also bars a subrogated claim filed after the injured person’s limitations period expires.

Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. DeHavilland Aircraft Co. of Canada · filed 1985-05-10

The rights thus acquired by the North Slope Borough and Providence Washington were subject to all defenses which DeHavil-land could have raised against Atkins, including the statute of limitations. Tort claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, which expired in October 1980. AS 09.10.070. Because Providence Washington did not assert a claim against DeHa-villand until 1983, its subrogated claim against DeHavilland is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070 does not govern a third-party claim for equitable apportionment of tort damages filed under Civil Rule 14(c).

Alaska General Alarm, Inc. v. Grinnell · filed 2000-04-21

Accordingly, we find no basis in law, reason, or precedent to conclude that an action commenced by a third-party complaint to apportion damages under AS 09.17.080, filed in accordance with Civil Rule 14(c), should be governed by AS 09.10.070, the statute of limitations governing the underlying tort claim-a distinet cause of action.

The two-year limitations period for negligence and product defect claims begins when the plaintiff suffers injury, rather than when a defective product is delivered.

Jarvill v. Porky's Equipment, Inc. · filed 2008-08-01(a)

Thus, the superior court erred in determining that the statute of limitations for Jarvill's tort claims began to run at the time of Steffen's June 10, 2000 survey.

Under subsection (a)'s discovery rule, the two-year tort period begins when the plaintiff has information sufficient to prompt a reasonable inquiry and charges the plaintiff with facts that inquiry would disclose.

Makin v. Pfizer Inc. · filed 2005-08-15(a)

Under Alaska law, a tort claim must be filed “within two years of the accrual of the cause of action.” Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070(a). ... We therefore hold that, on the facts of this case, the limitations period began to run no later than mid-October, 1999, when Dr. Makin first experienced the serious symptoms he now claims are due to Lipitor, and began his investigation into their cause. The district court properly concluded that Dr. Makin’s action, which was not filed until November, 2001, is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.

Subsection (a)'s two-year period applies to negligence and negligent-misrepresentation claims involving economic injury, while Alaska's discovery rule starts accrual upon information sufficient to alert a reasonable person to a potential claim.

2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Trust v. Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Co. · filed 2017-02-06(a)

Under Alaska law, Plaintiffs’ negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. ... Alaska, however, has adopted the discovery rule, which stipulates that “a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff has ‘information sufficient to alert a reasonable person to the fact that he has a potential cause of action.’ ”

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period for negligent legal malpractice begins when the client discovers, or reasonably should discover, all elements of the claim.

Greater Area Inc. v. Bookman · filed 1982-11-26

Of the various alternatives, the one that we believe most appropriate for our own jurisdiction is the so-called “discovery rule.” According to the best formulation of that rule, the statute of limitations for legal malpractice does not begin to run until the client discovers, or reasonably should discover, the existence of all the elements of his cause of action.

The two-year limitation period can begin when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should discover the facts giving rise to a tort claim, including a claim outside professional malpractice.

Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage · filed 1986-07-31(1)

We hold that the superior court correctly applied the discovery rule.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period begins when a claimant reasonably should have known the facts supporting the cause of action.

Russell v. Municipality of Anchorage · filed 1987-10-09

Applying the discovery rule to Russell’s section 1983 claim, as well as her state claims, we conclude that the superior court’s dismissal should be affirmed. ... Under the discovery rule the relevant inquiry is the date when Russell reasonably should have known of the facts supporting her cause of action.

Section 09.10.070 gives a misrepresentation claim a two-year limitations period that begins when the claimant discovers, or reasonably should discover, all essential elements of the claim.

Dalkovski v. Glad · filed 1989-05-12

The applicable statute of limitations is two years. AS 09.10.070. The statute of limitations “does not begin to run until the claimant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the existence of all elements essential to the cause of action.”

The two-year period for negligence and fraud expires two years after a plaintiff knows or should know the facts supporting a claim, even if the plaintiff does not recognize their legal significance.

Sharrow v. Archer · filed 1983-02-04(1)

Although reasonable persons might have differed as to whether Mrs. Sharrow actually understood that the facts she knew gave rise to a cause of action, there could be no difference of opinion that she should have known that she had a cause of action by December 1977. The two-year statute of limitation for negligence and fraud therefore expired in December 1979, nine months before the Sharrows filed their action.

Section 09.10.070 bars a claim two years after it accrues, which occurs when the claimant knows or should know of the claim.

Demoski v. New · filed 1987-05-22

The applicable statute of limitations is AS 09.10.070, which prescribes a bar of two years from the time the cause of action accrues. A cause of action accrues when a party knows or should know that he has a claim.

The two-year period for a personal injury claim is not tolled under the discovery rule while a claimant is bedridden if the claimant already knows of the injury and malfunction.

Yurioff v. American Honda Motor Co. · filed 1990-11-30

By his own testimony, Yurioff was aware of both the malfunction and his injury on the day of the accident. We hold that the discovery rule did not toll the statute while Yurioff was bedridden.

Under § 09.10.070, the two-year period begins when the plaintiff has information alerting a reasonable person to a potential claim; if the plaintiff investigates, the reasonableness of that inquiry matters to accrual.

Pedersen v. Zielski · filed 1991-12-06

Under the discovery rule, the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff has information sufficient to alert a reasonable person to the fact that he has a potential cause of action. ... Where the plaintiff actually attempts an inquiry, the fairer question in our view, is to ask whether his inquiry was reasonable.

The two-year period begins when a person discovers or reasonably should discover the essential elements of the claim; inquiry notice can start the period if reasonable investigation would leave enough time to file suit.

Cameron v. State · filed 1991-12-20

Taking Palmer and Mine Safety together, it seems accurate to express our discovery rule as follows: (1) a cause of action accrues when a person discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the existence of all elements essential to the cause of action; (2) a person reasonably should know of his cause of action when he has sufficient information to prompt an inquiry into the cause of action, if all of the essential elements of the cause of action may reasonably be discovered within the statutory period at a point when a reasonable time remains within which to file suit.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period begins when an accident victim knows of a compensable injury, even if the full extent of the damages is unknown.

Smith v. Thompson · filed 1996-09-20

We therefore hold that the statute of limitations on Smith’s cause of action began to run on the day of the accident when she first had notice that she had been injured. Her opportunity to file suit expired two years ffpm that date, and hence her current action is time-barred.

The two-year period for tort claims begins when the claimant discovers or reasonably should have discovered the alleged tort.

Moore v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2000-01-21(a)

It is unnecessary to choose between the two statutes potentially at issue here, because the discovery rule makes Moore’s claims timely even under the more restrictive two-year statute. We conclude that the statute began to run when Moore “discovered, or reasonably should have discovered,” the torts allegedly committed against her.

The two-year limitations period for negligent misrepresentation does not necessarily begin when a plaintiff has constructive knowledge of a zoning problem that a real estate professional allegedly had a duty to explain.

Hutton v. Realty Executives, Inc. · filed 2000-12-22(a)

The Huttons' claim of negligent misrepresentation is a tort claim, subject to a *980two-year statute of limitations.7 ... We hold that constructive knowledge does not, as a matter of law, bar claims for misrepresentation or breach of professional duty, where the subject of the constructive knowledge is the same subject about which the defendants allegedly had a professional duty to advise the plaintiffs.

Section 09.10.070 gives a plaintiff two years to bring a tort action; under the discovery rule, the period begins when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should discover the elements of the claim.

Sopko v. Dowell Schlumberger, Inc. · filed 2001-04-27

The applicable limitations period, defined by AS 09.10.070, is two years. ... Therefore, by September 20, 1990, Sopko reasonably should have discovered all of the elements of his cause of action, and under the discovery rule his claim is time barred.

Section 09.10.070(a)’s two-year period for a personal injury claim may begin when the claimant has enough information to investigate a possible claim; a factual dispute about that date precludes summary judgment.

John's Heating Service v. Lamb · filed 2002-05-10(a)

The facts put forth by John's Heating, and the supporting deposition testimony of the Lambs, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Lambs had sufficient information to constitute inquiry notice under the discovery rule. Accordingly; the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the Lambs on the statute of limitations issue.

The two-year period for a personal injury claim begins when the plaintiff is on inquiry notice of the cause of action.

John's Heating Service v. Lamb · filed 2006-02-24(a)

Hence, the Lambs were put on inquiry notice of their cause of action no earlier than January 31, 1993. And, because the two-year statute of limitations did not begin to run until they were put on inquiry notice, their December 23, 1993 complaint was timely.

The two-year period for a failure-to-accommodate claim depends on when the employee knew or reasonably should have known that the employer would make no further accommodation efforts; a genuine dispute about that date precludes summary judgment.

Goodman v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District · filed 2001-12-07(a)(5)

But until that time, the circumstances we have discussed above gave rise to genuine, material fact disputes about whether Goodman should have realized before February 18, 1996 that the district would make no further efforts to accommodate his disability, precluding summary judgment on the statute-of-limitations issue.

A publicly filed UCC financing statement does not give constructive notice of the elements of a misrepresentation claim for purposes of the two-year limitations period.

Ranes & Shine, LLC v. MacDonald Miller Alaska, Inc. · filed 2015-05-01(a)

UCC financing statements do not provide constructive notice of the elements of a claim for statute of limitations purposes.

The two-year limit for conversion claims does not warrant dismissal at the pleading stage when the alleged facts allow a timely accrual date under the discovery rule.

Jackson v. Municipality of Anchorage · filed 2016-08-05(a)(3)

We agree with Jackson that it was error for the court to conclude that his claim was time-barred under AS 09.10.070 on the ground that Jackson was on inquiry notice by 2007.

Section 09.10.070(a) gives a plaintiff two years from accrual to bring a tort claim; a genuine factual dispute about when the plaintiff had enough information to investigate the claim precludes summary judgment on timeliness.

Reasner v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services · filed 2017-05-19(a)

It was error to grant summary judgment to OCS under AS 09.10.070 because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to when Reasner’s claims accrued.

Section 09.10.070 gives a plaintiff two years from accrual to bring a tort claim; a factual dispute about when the claim accrued can prevent summary judgment.

Reasner v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services · filed 2017-05-19(a)

It was error to grant summary judgment to OCS under AS 09.10.070 because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to when Reasner’s claims accrued.

Section 09.10.070(a)(2) gives a plaintiff two years to bring a personal injury or emotional distress claim, beginning when the plaintiff has enough information to investigate a possible claim.

Harrell v. Calvin · filed 2017-09-08(a)(2)

Because Harrell and Kloxin were on inquiry notice of a possible claim against Calvin by at least July 12, 2013, their complaint — filed over two years later — was not timely under the applicable statutes of limitations.

The two-year limitations period for tort claims runs from accrual, which the discovery rule may delay; disputed facts about inquiry notice can preclude summary judgment.

Miller v. Fowler · filed 2018-06-29(a)

Accordingly, assuming the minimum two-year statute of limitations applies, all of his tort and professional misconduct claims must have accrued no earlier than August 7, 2011 to be timely. ... Given this record, Fowler did not establish an absence of factual dispute regarding when Miller’s claims accrued under the discovery rule.

The two-year limitations period for a fraud claim begins when the alleged misrepresentation causes appreciable injury and the claimant has notice of that injury.

Thomas Taffe and Devony Lehner v. First National Bank of Alaska · filed 2019-09-27(a)

Because Taffe and Lehner’s misrepresentation claim was complete no later than February 2010 and by that same time Taffe and Lehner had notice of their alleged injury — tracts that they contended were represented in 2008 to have clear title had clouded title, and there were related restrictions on sale proceeds — the superior court ... correctly concluded that the applicable statutes of limitations for Taffe and Lehner’s fraud claims began to run no later than February 2010.

The two-year period for a personal injury claim begins when the plaintiff has enough information to prompt an inquiry into the claim.

Arnoult v. Melissa Webster, DMD · filed 2020-06-12(a)

We therefore hold that “the superior court had before it uncontroverted facts sufficient to support its entry of summary judgment” based on its conclusion that the limitation period started no later than July 2013.

Section 09.10.070(b) gives a claimant two years to sue a peace officer for an official act or omission; the period begins when the claimant discovers or reasonably should discover the facts supporting the claim.

Hardy v. City of Nome · filed 2020-08-26(b)

In Alaska, “[a] person may not bring an action against a peace officer or coroner upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in an official capacity or by the omission of an official duty . . . unless brought within two years.” AS 09.10.070(b). ... Because it is plausible that plaintiff’s claims in Count II and Count VI did not accrue until mid-March 2018, it is plausible that these claims are timely.

Even assuming the two-year limitation applies, a party must explain why the period began on the date it asserts before the claim can be found untimely.

ITMO the Estate of Wayne Colyer Fields v · filed 2016-04-20(a)

If we assume that either AS 09.10.053 or AS 09.10.070(a) applies here, Joseph and Wayne, Jr. fail to explain why the statutory period began to run in 2004 rather than 2012 or 2013.

Section 09.10.070's two-year limitations period for certain tort actions begins when the cause of action accrues, including under the continuous representation rule for legal malpractice claims.

Sheldon-Lee v. Birch Horton Bittner, Inc., David K. Gross, and Mara E. Michaletz · filed 2025-03-21

But our legislature has not expressly defined accrual for purposes of contract or tort claims. ... It is left to the courts to determine when such claims accrue.

Subsection (a)'s two-year period governs Alaska medical-malpractice tort claims, with discovery accrual when the plaintiff has information alerting a reasonable person to a potential claim.

Wolcoff v. United States · filed 2011-09-08(a)

The statute of limitations for tort actions in Alaska is two years. See Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070(a). ... At the very latest, then, the Wolcoffs knew of a potential medical malpractice claim against Dr. Yost by the date of the expert’s report. Assuming without deciding that limitations did not begin to run until October 23, 2006, the amended complaint, filed in March 2009, was nevertheless untimely by almost six months.

Section 09.10.070 bars a legal malpractice claim filed more than two years after the plaintiff knew the essential facts supporting it, even if the full extent of the loss was unknown.

Van Horn Lodge, Inc. v. White · filed 1981-05-01

While the full extent of the loss allegedly attributable to such acts or omissions on the part of White and Jones may not have been known, Van Horn was certainly aware of all of the essential facts forming the basis for its second claim for relief more than two years prior to the time it filed its complaint against White and Jones. Such being the case, its second claim for relief was barred by AS 09.10.070.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limitation applies to professional malpractice causing personal or reputational injury.

Breck v. Moore · filed 1996-02-02

The two-year statute of limitations appbes to malpractice causing personal or reputational injury.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period does not govern a legal malpractice claim based on breach of a specific promise in an express contract, even if the conduct could also be negligence.

Jones v. Wadsworth · filed 1990-05-11(1)

Thus, the question presented is whether Jones’ claim for breach of these promises is an “action upon a contract” governed by the six-year statute of limitations of AS 09.10.050,1 or is an action in tort for “injury to the person ... not arising on contract” governed by the two-year limitations period of AS 09.10.070.2 We hold that Jones’ claim for breach of these particular promises is an action in contract under AS 09.Í0.050.

The two-year limitation period for legal malpractice arising from criminal proceedings does not begin to run until the client obtains post-conviction relief.

Shaw v. State, Department of Administration, Public Defender Agency · filed 1991-08-30

Therefore, we conclude that the statute of limitations on legal malpractice actions arising out of criminal proceedings does not begin to run until after the post-conviction relief has been obtained.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit does not apply to claims arising from professional service relationships that primarily involve economic injury when the duty breached arises in part from a contract.

Lee Houston & Associates, Ltd. v. Racine · filed 1991-03-01(1)

This suggests the inapplicability of AS 09.10.070 to actions arising out of professional service relationships which primarily involve economic injury, since, as already indicated, the duty allegedly breached does in part arise from the contract.

Section 09.10.070 gives a two-year limitations period for medical malpractice claims seeking damages for personal injury when the duty arises from law rather than a contractual promise.

Pedersen v. Flannery · filed 1993-11-30

Thus, Ped-ersen’s claims are governed by the two-year statute of limitations for injuries to the person not arising on contract contained in AS 09.10.070.

Section 09.10.070 sets a two-year limitations period for malpractice actions claiming personal or reputational injury.

Sengupta v. Wickwire · filed 2005-12-09

Malpractice actions claiming personal or rep-utational injury are governed by a two-year statute of limitations.

Subsection (a)'s two-year period for liabilities created by statute governs federal labor claims under section 303 rather than the six-month period for petitions to vacate arbitration awards.

American President Lines, Ltd. v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union · filed 2013-07-12(a)

We see no reason to upend our consistent practice of applying the statute of limitations for actions “upon a liability created by statute” to Section 303 suits. ... In Alaska, the limitations period is two years.

Section 09.10.070 provides a two-year limitation for suits to collect statutory penalties.

State v. Baker · filed 1964-07-10

But whether the Washington court was correct in holding that the imposition of such penalty and interest were unconstitutional revenue measures instead of being merely another phase of the ABLA we need not decide at this time, for in either ■event suit to collect such penalty and interest was outlawed in the Washington action by the statute of limitations of Washington ... and Alaska, ... which both provide a two-year limitation with respect to statutory penalties.

Section 09.10.070 requires strict products liability claims for personal injury to be brought within two years unless another statute specifically provides otherwise.

Anderson v. Fairchild Hiller Corporation · filed 1973-10-25

The court holds that an action to enforce a strict liability must be brought within two years after it arose. Three considerations compel this result. First, A.S. 09.10.070 is a “residual” statute in that it governs all claims for injury to the person unless “specifically provided otherwise” in some other statute. There is no other statute specifically limiting the period for bringing strict liability claims.

Section 09.10.070(1) provides a two-year limitation period for a negligence claim involving an injury not committed by force.

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. · filed 1977-04-18(1)

As the injury which occurred herein was not committed by force the appropriate limitation period is two years if Alaska law applies. ... Hence, this claim must be dismissed.

Section 09.10.070 sets a two-year deadline for bringing a personal injury action.

Adkins v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc. · filed 1980-04-04

Adkins filed suit on July 20, 1977. The limitations period expired on August 9, 1977.

Section 09.10.070(3) gives a taxpayer two years to sue a municipality for a tax refund based on a liability created by statute.

Kenai Peninsula Borough v. Port Graham Corp. · filed 1994-04-08(3)

The liability of a municipality for a tax refund is a liability created by statute. As such, the liability squarely falls within the express language of AS 09.10.070(3), that “no person may bring an action ... (3) upon a liability created by statute ... unless commenced within two years.”

Section 09.10.070(a)(2)’s two-year limit for an action upon a forfeiture statute does not apply to a common-law conversion claim merely because forfeiture procedures could provide a defense.

Toney v. City of Anchorage Police Department · filed 1997-12-19(a)(2)

Both AS 09.10.060(b) and AS 09.10.070(a)(2) use the language “an action upon a statute.” This language appears to require that the statute at least implicitly, if not explicitly, provide the cause of action. Toney’s action is not provided by statute; it is an action for conversion, a creature of common law.

Section 09.10.070 provides a two-year limitations period for excessive force claims under state or federal law.

Mulligan v. Municipality of Anchorage · filed 2021-09-15

The statute of limitations for excessive force claims under either federal or state law is two years.

Subsections (a) and (b) impose a two-year period on personal-injury claims and actions against police officers, including section 1983 and related state-law claims arising from arrest and search.

Rhodes v. Treaver Miller · filed 2014-07-31(a)-(b)

The district court properly dismissed Rhodes’ federal constitutional and state law claims arising from his allegedly unlawful arrest and an allegedly unlawful search and seizure because Rhodes filed his complaint more than two years after these claims accrued. See Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070 (a)-(b) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims and actions against police officers).

Subsection (a)'s residual two-year personal-injury period applies to section 1983 claims in Alaska, subject to discovery and statutory mental-incompetency tolling.

Slaikeu v. Alaska Dept. of Corrections · filed 2023-02-01(a)

The statute of limitations for such claims in Alaska is two years. ... Plaintiff’s statute of limitations began on the date of the alleged injury, on February 26, 2015. ... The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments insufficient to justify tolling. Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims fall well outside the statute of limitations and are time-barred.

Subsection (a)'s two-year personal-injury period governs section 1983 and analogous federal civil-rights claims, while federal law determines accrual.

Mason v. University of Alaska - Anchorage · filed 2025-03-24(a)

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury torts is two years. ... Mason filed her complaint on November 14, 2022; therefore, her claims must be based on events that occurred on or after November 14, 2020. None the events that form the basis of Mason’s due process claim occurred within the limitations period.

Section 1983 claims borrow Alaska's two-year personal-injury period, subject to Alaska's limited equitable-tolling rules.

Blodgett v. Barkwood · filed 2025-04-14

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Plaintiff first filed his claims in federal court on October 18, 2024, almost a year after the two-year statute of limitations expired on November 7, 2023. Therefore, without a basis for tolling, Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 1983 claims borrow Alaska's two-year personal-injury period from accrual, subject to applicable state tolling rules.

Taylor v. Department of Corrections · filed 2025-06-30

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim is based on an alleged assault that occurred in December 2018. Therefore, without a basis for equitable tolling or other grounds sufficient to overcome the applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiff’s failure to ... protect claim became time-barred after the two-year statute of limitations expired in December 2020.

Section 09.10.070 supplies the two-year personal-injury limitations period for section 1983 claims filed in Alaska, and self-represented status does not excuse an untimely filing.

Lewis-Junge · filed 2025-12-05

Because § 1983 does not contain its own statute of limitations, federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Therefore, if a claim is not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, dismissal is proper, including when a plaintiff is self-represented. ... Most of Plaintiff’s claims accrued more than two years prior to the filing of her Complaints.

Section 09.10.070 supplies a two-year personal-injury period for section 1983 claims, subject to forum-state tolling rules, and a facially late claim may proceed past screening only if the plaintiff adequately pleads tolling or another basis overcoming the bar.

Sutherland · filed 2026-01-26

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Here, the emergency surgery giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Bales allegedly occurred on or about July 11, 2023. ... But Plaintiff filed this case on September 9, 2025, almost two months after the two-year statute of limitations had expired. ... However, before dismissing Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Bales as time-barred, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to address equitable tolling.

Section 09.10.070 supplies a two-year personal-injury period for section 1983 claims, so an amended complaint filed in August 2025 cannot rely on medical-care events before August 2023 without adequately pleading tolling or another exception.

Revet · filed 2026-01-26

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Because this case was filed on August 8, 2025, Plaintiff must not bring any inadequate medical care claims related to events that occurred before August 8, 2023, unless he demonstrates that he qualifies for equitable tolling or other grounds sufficient to overcome the applicable statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070 supplies a two-year period for personal-property claims and is borrowed for section 1983 claims arising from injury to property.

Byler v. City of Kodiak · filed 2026-02-19

The district court properly determined that the local ordinances related to the harbor were not preempted by federal maritime law and properly dismissed as time-barred Byler’s claims arising from the 2017 impoundment of the Wild Alaskan. See Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070 (providing two-year statute of limitations for personal property claims).

AS 09.10.070(1) sets a two-year limitations period for all § 1983 claims in Alaska.

Jenkins v. Daniels · filed 1988-03-04(1)

The § 1983 claim is time barred because AS 09.10.070(1) is the applicable statute of limitations for all § 1983 claims in Alaska, and Wilson requires us to use this two-year statute.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit for liabilities created by statute yields when a foreign statute’s longer limitation is a condition of the foreign right of action.

Marine Construction & Design Co. v. Vessel Tim, Official No. 290680 · filed 1967-12-08

In short, we hold that where the foreign limitation qualifies or conditions the right of action we will apply the foreign period of limitations, even though longer than our own period of limitations.

Subsection (a) is a residual two-year period for noncontractual personal-injury and other tort claims not specifically governed elsewhere, subject to discovery-rule accrual.

Baum v. Quinn · filed 2022-09-19(a)

The statute of limitations for torts is two years “except as otherwise provided by law.” ... Under the two-year statute of limitations, Plaintiff’s claim with respect to any of the foregoing expired no later than October 2021, two years after the jury verdict and four months before this suit was filed. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Statute of Limitations grounds must be GRANTED.

Section 09.10.070 gives a person two years to bring a personal injury claim based on a duty imposed by law, even when the parties had a contractual relationship.

Silverton v. Marler · filed 1964-01-30

The controlling statute of limitations is the two-year statute governing tort actions, and not the six-year statute reláting to actions on contract.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period does not govern an action seeking relief from a contract obtained through duress when the action is on an implied contract.

Estate of Waters v. Hoadley · filed 1970-09-04

Appellant contends that the two-year statute, AS 09.10.070, applies to this action. ... This overlooks the distinction between right and remedy. ... We need only hold, as we do, that in seeking relief from the duressed contract, the action here was on an implied contract under the six-year statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit does not apply to personal injury claims for breach of warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Sinka v. Northern Commercial Company · filed 1971-11-30

Thus the general two-year statute of limitations was repealed to the extent that it might otherwise control recovery for personal injuries resulting from breach of warranty under the code.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit is not waived by a defendant’s cross-claim that is dismissed while the injured parties still have time to file their tort action.

Garfield v. Clark · filed 1977-08-19

After dismissal, Garfield and Karrer had approximately eight months in which to file a state court action against Clark before the running of the applicable two year statute of limitations. We thus are unable to find any merit in appellants’ waiver contentions.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit applies to negligent damage to real property when the claim rests on a duty of reasonable care, even if the complaint frames that duty as an implied contractual obligation.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Sauer Electric, Inc. · filed 1986-11-28(1)

The contract claims alleged are “in essence,” as the Alaska Supreme Court would put it, for breach of a duty of reasonable care, so their gravamen is tort. Under Alaska law, a plaintiff cannot escape the two year statute by framing a complaint for breach of a duty of reasonable care as a contract complaint for breach of the implied duty to perform the contract in a workmanlike manner.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit does not apply to negligence or strict liability claims alleging an invasion of real property rights; those claims fall under the six-year limit for trespass upon real property.

McDowell v. State · filed 1998-04-25(a)(1)

The superior court dismissed the negligence and strict liability claims, on the ground they were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, AS 09.10.070. Because we conclude that these claims alleged “trespass upon real property” and were subject to the six-year statute of limitations, AS 09.10.050(2), we reverse and remand.

Section 09.10.070(a)(1)’s two-year limit applies to tort claims for economic loss when the action does not arise from a contractual obligation.

Law Offices of Steven D. Smith, P.C. v. Borg-Warner Security Corp. · filed 1999-12-23(a)(1)

Because the economic losses do not constitute “an action ... arising on contract” for an injury to Smith’s rights, we conclude that the two-year statute of limitations governs Smith’s claims for economic loss.

Section 09.10.070 applies when a private party takes or injures another private party’s personal property, not when the state acts.

Vanek v. STATE, BOARD OF FISHERIES · filed 2008-09-19

The claim based on damage to the value of the entry permits does not fall under the two year statute of limitations because AS 09.10.070 applies only to situations in which a private party takes or injures the personal property of another private party, and this case involves not private action but state action.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period does not govern spoliation and fraudulent conveyance claims arising in connection with a legal malpractice claim when the longer three-year period reasonably applies.

Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP · filed 2013-08-02(a)(2)

It was error to apply AS 09.10.070 to the Shareholders’ spoliation and fraudulent conveyance claims.

Section 09.10.070(a)(2) sets a two-year limit for claims alleging injury to rights from an improperly recorded plat.

Krause v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough · filed 2010-04-23(a)(2)

We conclude that AS 09.10.070 and AS 09.10.090 are the controlling statutes here. The Krauses request relief for injury arising from the inappropriate recording of a plat; nearly all of their claims are properly described as claims "for personal injury ... or injury to the rights of another not arising on contract and not specifically provided otherwise."

The two-year tort limitation does not generally apply to uninsured motorist insurance claims; the three-year contract limitation applies.

McDonnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2013-04-26

Because applying the contract statute of limitations is consistent with our case law and the majority of other jurisdictions, we hold the three-year contract statute of limitations generally applies to UM claims.

Section 09.10.070 does not bar a motion to adjudicate property issues left unresolved in an existing divorce action.

Schaub v. Schaub · filed 2013-08-02(a)(2)

In the present case, Theresa did not bring an action, but rather filed a motion to further adjudicate an already existing action — thus, her motion was not subject to the statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070(a) applies a two-year limit to a statutory contamination claim involving the claimant’s own property; a claim involving neighboring property is subject to the six-year trespass limit.

Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. · filed 2016-08-26(a)

We agree with the superior court that Flint Hills’s strict liability statutory claim is time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations under AS 09.10.070(a) with respect to sulfolane contamination on the refinery property. But we hold that Flint Hills’s potential liability to owners of properties beyond the refinery’s boundaries is subject to the six-year statute of limitations for trespass claims under AS 09.10.050.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period does not bar a misrepresentation defense raised within two years of the earliest possible awareness of the alleged misrepresentation, assuming the period applies.

Tanadgusix Corporation v. Arm, Ltd. · filed 2019-12-19

Plaintiffs also argued that their breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims were plausible because Unimerica’s “claim of misrepresentation” is barred by the two-year statute of limitations found in AS 09.10.070. Even if Unimerica’s misrepresentation defense is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, Unimerica timely raised the defense. The earliest Unimerica could be deemed to have been aware of the alleged misrepresentations would have been when the Hospital filed suit in February 2017. If, as plaintiffs contend, Unimerica first raised its misrepresentation claim in January 2019, then it did so within the requisite two years.

Section 1983 claims borrow Alaska's two-year personal-injury period, and an amended claim against a new defendant is untimely unless it relates back through timely notice.

Johnson v. Brainerd · filed 2024-01-24

In Alaska, the limitations period for personal injury actions is two years from the time a cause of action accrues. ... Therefore, his cause of action accrued no later than November 6, 2019, and the two-year limitations period to assert this claim ran on November 6, 2021. ... Therefore, Mr. Johnson’s claim for denial of essential medical care against Ms. Axelsson was not timely filed and must be dismissed.

The two-year limitation does not bar a tort claim when an amendment adding the proper plaintiffs relates back to the original complaint.

Burns v. Anchorage Funeral Chapel · filed 1972-03-22

Since the amendment adding parties plaintiff relates back to the date of the original complaint, the two year tort statute of limitations is no bar to prosecution of the claim for relief under Count II.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limitation does not bar a consortium claim added after the deadline when the amendment relates back to a timely complaint based on the same conduct, transaction, and occurrence.

Jakoski v. Holland · filed 1974-03-11

Jacqueline Jakoski filed her complaint for damages approximately 2 months before the 2-year statute of limitations of AS 09.10.070 had expired. ... Under the provisions of Alaska Civil Rule 15(c) and our ruling in Burns, we hold that amendment here did not state a new claim for relief but did relate back to the date of the original complaint and was not barred by the statute of limitations.

The two-year limitation does not bar an omitted cross-claim arising from the same transaction when Civil Rule 15(c) relates it back to a timely answer.

Estate of Thompson v. Mercedes-Benz, Inc. · filed 1973-10-19

We are persuaded that the correct rule is that a counterclaim should relate back under Civil Rule 15(c), if it arose from the same transaction, and that the same test should be applied to an omitted cross-claim. The appellee was on notice of the pending suit arising out of the accident and should not now be allowed to use a statute of limitations to cut off the appellant's claim for relief.

For the two-year slander limitations period, a compulsory counterclaim relates back to the date the plaintiff filed the complaint.

MacDonald v. Riggs · filed 2007-08-31

Therefore, we find that Riggs's counterclaim was compulsory and relates back to the date of MacDonald's complaint and Riggs may recover for any defamatory statements made by MacDonald after March 21, 2001.

Alaska's two-year personal-injury period governs section 1983 claims and is not tolled while a prior federal action is pending if that action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Andrew v. Doe · filed 2025-04-01

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... However, the statute of limitations for federal civil rights claims is not tolled during the pendency of a case filed in federal court that is dismissed without prejudice for ... failure to prosecute and then the same suit is refiled later in the same court, as is the case here.

Alaska's two-year personal-injury period is not tolled during a prior federal case dismissed without prejudice, and any disability toll permits filing only within two years after disability ceases.

Andrew v. Doe · filed 2025-09-04

The two-year statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims expired on January 20, 2022. ... And, as explained in the Screening Order, the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of his previous federal case. Because Plaintiffs claims must have been brought within two years from whenever his disability ceased, at the very latest, the statute of limitations expired on March 16, 2024, eight months before he filed this case. For these reasons, the FAC must be dismissed.

Section 1983 claims borrow Alaska's two-year personal-injury period, which runs from knowledge of injury and is tolled only while a prisoner actively completes mandatory exhaustion.

Rhodes v. Lawrence · filed 2025-04-08

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Therefore, without tolling, Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred since they were filed more than 21 months after the two-year statute of limitations expired on March 3, 2023. ... Therefore, “the applicable statute of limitations must be tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion process.” ... Accordingly, the statute of limitations period may only be tolled while the prisoner was actively exhausting administrative remedies and not for any time he was filing repeated grievances regarding continuing violations.

Alaska's two-year personal-injury period governs section 1983 medical-care claims; mandatory exhaustion tolls only active exhaustion and does not merge distinct episodes into a continuing violation.

Bennett v. Smith · filed 2025-07-23

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... The exhaustion requirement justifies tolling the statute of limitations, but it does not justify creating a new accrual rule. ... For these reasons, Plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claims based on the events that allegedly occurred in 2021 became time-barred after the two-year statute of limitations expired towards the end of 2023, at the latest. ... This period presents a separate, timely episode of alleged inadequate medical care. Therefore, Plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claim based on the events that allegedly occurred in 2023 are not time-barred.

Section 1983 claims borrow Alaska's two-year personal-injury period; accrual begins with awareness of injury, and later discovery of its full extent or serial grievances does not restart the period.

Angellan · filed 2026-02-23

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Plaintiff’s worsening condition and subsequent diagnosis in late 2023 do not change the fact that Plaintiff was, or should have, been aware of his potential claim in September or October 2021. But Plaintiff did not file this case until October 28, 2025, approximately two years after the statute of limitations had expired in late 2023. ... Therefore, the additional grievances Plaintiff filed in 2022 and 2023 do not revive or extend the statute of limitations period.

Section 09.10.070 provides a two-year statute of limitations for tort actions against peace officers.

Coleman v. The City and Borough of Juneau · filed 2023-08-25

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for a tort action against a peace officer is two years.

Section 09.10.070 sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.

Bunker · filed 2025-12-05

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years.

Section 09.10.070(a) requires tort claims to be brought within two years of accrual.

Robinson v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. · filed 2019-06-14(a)

In Alaska tort claims must be brought within two years of the cause of action's accrual12 and contract claims must be brought within three years.

Alaska tort claims must be filed within two years after accrual.

Braswell v. Lothrop · filed 2025-07-16

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for tort claims is two years. ... Here, the statute of limitations has clearly run as the alleged ... conversion of funds took place approximately 16 years ago. ... Therefore, it is clear from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070 gives personal-injury tort claims a two-year limitations period, and self-represented status does not excuse filing almost five years after the alleged events.

Northway · filed 2026-03-09

If a claim is not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, dismissal is proper, including when a plaintiff is self-represented. Under Alaska law, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years and three years for breach of contract claims.

A claim under § 09.10.070 is timely when its two-year period ends on a Saturday, the following Monday is a legal holiday, and the complaint is filed on Tuesday.

David v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. · filed 1976-12-29

Since the last day for the running of the statute of limitations fell on a Saturday, and the following Monday was a legal holiday, it follows that the claim which was filed on July 6 was not barred by the statute of limitation.

AS 09.10.070 sets a two-year limitation period for tort claims.

Norman v. Nichiro Gyogyo Kaisha, Ltd. · filed 1982-05-28

The statute of limitations on tort claims is two years.

The two-year limitation period for libel actions ordinarily begins when the libel is published.

Chiei v. Stern · filed 1977-04-01

AS 09.10.070 establishes a two-year statute of limitations for actions for libel. Normally the period begins to run when the libel is “published.”

Section 09.10.070 gives two years to bring a tort action for injury to intangible rights, including interference with contract rights.

Blake v. Gilbert · filed 1985-07-05

In Alaska the period of limitations for tort actions involving injury to intangible rights is two years.

The two-year limitation period begins when the claimant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, all elements of the claim.

Gudenau & Co., Inc. v. Sweeney Ins., Inc. · filed 1987-05-08

Today the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the claimant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the existence of all elements essential to the cause of action.

Section 09.10.070(1) requires a negligence claim to be brought within two years; even measuring from discovery under the more liberal rule for fraud or concealment, a claim filed after that period is barred.

King v. First National Bank of Fairbanks · filed 1982-07-09(1)

Even if we apply the more liberal rule that causes of action involving fraud or concealment accrue from the date the wrong is discovered, the Kings’ right to bring a tort claim would have expired, at the latest, in December 1974. Insofar as the cause of action is based on allegations of negligence alone, the superior court’s determination was correct. The Bank was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim as a matter of law.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year period for a defamation action begins when the allegedly defamatory statement is published.

McCutcheon v. State · filed 1987-11-13

McCutcheon’s defamation action is governed by the two-year tort statute of limita*464tions. AS 09.10.070;7 see Chiei v. Stem, 561 P.2d 1216, 1217 (Alaska 1977). The statute begins to run upon “publication” of the allegedly defamatory statements.

The two-year limitation period for attorney malpractice begins when the client has suffered actual harm and does not wait until the full extent of the damages is known.

Wettanen v. Cowper · filed 1988-03-31

Again, the guiding principle is that the statute of limitations commences to run when one is actually damaged as a result of the alleged malpractice, and that the commencement of the statute will not be put off until one learns the full extent of his damages.

Section 09.10.070(1) gives a child’s loss of parental consortium claim a two-year limitations period, which is tolled during minority under § 09.10.140.

Truesdell v. Halliburton Co., Inc. · filed 1988-04-15(1)

Among the “action[s] mentioned in this chapter” are actions “for any injury to the person or rights of another not arising on contract and not specifically provided otherwise.” AS 09.10.070(1). That section provides for a two year statute of limitations. Id. Loss of parental consortium is an injury to the rights of a child. Thus, a child has until two years after reaching age eighteen to commence an action for loss of parental consortium.

The two-year period for a tort action begins the day after a minor reaches majority; if its last day falls on a Saturday, a filing on the following Monday is timely.

Fields v. Fairbanks North Star Borough · filed 1991-10-11

Therefore, we hold that attainment of the age of majority is analogous to other events that trigger running of time periods; the limitation period excludes the day of the event (attainment of majority), and includes the last day in the period, unless that day is a holiday. Under this rule, McFetridge’s action was timely. Her disability of minority ceased as of her eighteenth birthday. Thus, the two-year statute of limitations began to run on February 4, 1988 and ended on February 3, 1990. Since February 3, 1990 fell on a Saturday, a claim filed on the following Monday, February 5, 1990, was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070 gives a person two years to bring a tort claim for personal damages; equitable estoppel requires evidence that the defendant induced the delay.

STATE, DEPT. OF NAT. RES. v. Transamerica · filed 1993-07-23(1)

Because Blanas filed his personal action after the two-year statute of limitations had run, his suit must also be dismissed. Blanas has not shown that the state should be equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense.

Section 09.10.070 requires an action for injury to a person or rights that does not arise from contract to be filed within two years.

State, Department of Natural Resources v. Transamerica Premier Insurance Co. · filed 1993-07-23(1)

Because Blanas filed his personal action after the two-year statute of limitations had run, his suit must also be dismissed.

Section 09.10.070 gives fraud and misrepresentation claims a two-year limitations period.

Bauman v. Day · filed 1995-03-24(1)

Claims for fraud and misrepresentation are tort claims, and thus are subject to the two-year statute of limitations provided in AS 09.10.070.

Section 09.10.070 sets a two-year limit for personal injury suits; AS 13.16.455 extends that limit by four months when the defendant dies.

Hamilton v. Blackman · filed 1996-05-17

Thus, AS 13.16.455 extends by four months the two-year limit set by AS 09.10.070. The original complaint, filed within twenty-eight months of the accident, was consequently timely.

Section 09.10.070 imposes a two-year limit on a tort claim for interference with prospective economic advantage.

Hayes v. A.J. Associates, Inc. · filed 1998-05-22

The applicable limitations period is two years. AS 09.10.070; see Blake v. Gilbert, 702 P.2d 631, 639 (Alaska 1985), overruled on other grounds, Bibo v. Jeffrey’s' Restaurant, 770 P.2d 290, 296 n. 9 (Alaska 1989). Hayes did not file his tort action until 1993. His action was consequently time-barred.

Section 09.10.070(a) generally requires tort actions to be filed within two years after the cause of action accrues.

Dore v. City of Fairbanks · filed 2001-09-28(a)

The general statute of limitations for tort actions is two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action.

Section 09.10.070 gives tort actions a two-year limitations period; a bad-faith claim filed more than four years after the insurer explained its denial is untimely under that period.

Kaiser v. Umialik Insurance · filed 2005-03-11

The statute of limitations began running on September 2,1998, when Foster sent his letter offering a detailed explanation for the denial of Kaiser’s claim. Kaiser filed his complaint alleging bad faith in that denial on September 12, 2002, over four years later. The Alaska statute of limitations for tort actions is two years ... and the statute for contract actions is three years ... Kaiser’s complaint was thus late regardless of how the claim is characterized.

Section 09.10.070(a)(1)’s two-year limit applies to a misrepresentation claim connected to a contract when the claim is not based on fiduciary duties owed by a contracting party.

Alaska Tae Woong Venture, Inc. v. Westward Seafoods, Inc. · filed 1998-08-28(a)(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding the two-year statute applicable.

A malicious prosecution claim is subject to Section 09.10.070's two-year limitations period.

Brown v. Ely · filed 2000-12-15

The two-year statute of limitations for any malicious prosecution claims therefore expired on April 10, 1997.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limitation applies to negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims; an unfiled claim expires when that period runs.

Wold v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co. · filed 2002-08-02

To the contrary, Peterson consistently professed to have abandoned any such claim, omitted it from the Wolds' formal complaint against Smith, and allowed the claim to expire under the statute of limitations as of December 27, 1997.

Section 09.10.070 sets a general two-year limit for personal injury actions, subject to tolling for minors under section 09.10.140.

Evans Ex Rel. Kutch v. State · filed 2002-08-30(a)

The first of these provisions, AS 09.10.070, creates a general two-year statute of limitations for various causes of action, including personal injury actions.

Section 09.10.070 sets a two-year limitations period for tort actions.

Clemensen v. Providence Alaska Medical Center · filed 2009-03-27

We agree. The statute of limitations for a tort action is two years.

Section 09.10.070 generally gives a plaintiff two years to bring a tort action; summary judgment on that limit requires uncontroverted facts about when the claim accrued.

Erkins v. Alaska Trustee, LLC · filed 2011-10-21

Alaska Statute 09.10.070 provides that actions for torts must generally be brought within two years, while AS 09.10.058 provides for a three-year statute of limitations for contract claims. ... On the record before us, there are not uncontroverted facts supporting a conclusion that the statutes of limitations bar Erkins's claims, and affirming summary judgment on these independent grounds is inappropriate.

The two-year limitation for a personal-injury action runs from accrual of the cause of action.

Richardson v. Municipality of Anchorage · filed 2015-10-30(a)

Because we ultimately agree with the superior court that the statute of limitations expired on July 14, we do not need to decide whether the “mailbox rule” should apply.

Personal injury actions ordinarily must be filed within two years of accrual.

Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc. · filed 2005-12-16(a)

Here, Cikan was injured in 1991 and filed suit against ARCO nearly nine years later, in 2000. Her claim would ordinarily be barred by the two-year filing limit for personal injury claims set out in AS 09.10.070(a).

Section 09.10.070(a)’s two-year limitation applies to intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Maness v. Gordon · filed 2014-03-21(a)

Although AS 09.10.070(a) does not explicitly include claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, it includes “libel, slander, assault, battery, . . . personal injury,” and other torts similar to intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, an emotional distress claim is subject to the same two-year statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070(a) bars claims based on intentional injury after the two-year limitations period expires.

Cornelison v. TIG Insurance · filed 2016-08-12(a)

We agree with the superior court that any »claims-related to intentional injury that occurred during the 2008 exam were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070 gives tort claims a two-year limitations period.

Doe v. University of Alaska Board of Regents · filed 2019-09-04

In Alaska, a two-year statute of limitations applies to tort claims. AS 09.10.070.

Section 09.10.070 imposes a two-year limitations period on tort claims.

Doe v. University of Alaska Board of Regents · filed 2019-10-31

In Alaska, a two-year statute of limitations applies to tort claims. AS 09.10.070. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on May 15, 2019. Thus, in order for Ortiz’s tort claims to be timely, they must be based on conduct that occurred on or after May 14, 2017.

Section 09.10.070 gives a plaintiff two years from accrual to bring a tort action.

Eyre v. The City of Fairbanks · filed 2020-06-10

Similarly, the statute of limitations for actions in tort is two years from the accrual of the cause of action. See AS 09.10.070.

Section 09.10.070(a) requires personal injury actions, including medical malpractice claims, to be brought within two years.

Wright v. Anding · filed 2017-03-17(a)

Under AS 09.10.070(a), actions for personal injury must be brought within two years.

Section 09.10.070 sets a two-year limitations period for tort actions.

2002 Lawrence R. Buchalter Alaska Trust v. Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Co. · filed 2015-03-31

In particular, the statute of limitations for tort actions is two years, see Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070, and the statute of limitations for contract actions is three years, see Alaska Stat. § 09.10.053.

Section 09.10.070 provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which governs § 1983 claims in Alaska.

Seugasala v. State of Alaska Department of Corrections · filed 2021-11-17

“The limitations period for a § 1983 claim is prescribed by the state statute of limitations for a personal injury action.” ... “In Alaska this period is two years.” ... “AS 09.10.070 sets the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Alaska.”

Section 09.10.070(a) applies a two-year limitation period to actions for personal injury and statutory liabilities.

Mulligan v. Kohl · filed 2022-02-02(a)

A breach-of-duty claim accruing at that time is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. ... See AS 09.10.070(a) (providing that two-year statute of limitations applies to action “for personal injury or death, or injury to the rights of another not arising on contract and not specifically provided otherwise,” and to “a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture”).

Section 09.10.070(a)(2) requires personal injury claims to be filed within two years after accrual.

Park v. Spayd · filed 2022-05-20(a)(2)

A personal injury claim, such as Park’s negligence claim against Spayd, must be filed within two years of the date on which the claim accrues.15 ... By 2010 Park was also aware that Spayd had a role in that addiction through what Park describes as grossly negligent prescriptions. Park was on notice of all the elements of her negligence and malpractice claims against Spayd. The limitations periods for these claims therefore began to run in 2010 and expired in 2012 and 2013 ... respectively. Because Park did not file suit against Spayd until 2019, her claims are time-barred.

Section 09.10.070 requires tort actions for recovery of property to be brought within two years.

Harmon v. Mayer · filed 2022-12-07

Alaska Statute 09.10.070 requires tort actions for the recovery of property to be brought within two years, while AS 09.10.030 requires actions for the recovery of real property to be brought within ten years.

Section 09.10.070 sets a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

Lane v. Gorup · filed 2023-01-18

As a final matter, the Court finds that Mr. Lane’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Federal constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 must be brought within the timeframe required by the applicable state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Alaska’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years.

Section 09.10.070 sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury tort claims in Alaska.

Robinson v. State of Alaska, DHSS, BCP, SDS · filed 2024-01-04

The statute of limitations of personal injury tort claims in Alaska is two years.

Section 09.10.070(a) requires tort claims to be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.

Blake J. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services Philip Kaufman John Does 1-10 and Alexa J. · filed 2024-08-23(a)

Blake’s tort claims are barred by the statute of limitations, which requires such claims to be brought within two years. ... Although the statute of limitations was tolled while Blake was a minor, ... more than two years elapsed between the date he turned 18 and the date he filed his lawsuit.

Section 09.10.070 provides a two-year limitations period for the state claims, which could expire no earlier than two years after the oil spill began.

In Re Glacier Bay · filed 1990-09-28

As to the state claims, the parties agree that the applicable limitations period is two years as provided in AS 09.10.070. The oil spill began on July 2, 1987. Therefore, the earliest possible date for the limitations period to have expired is July 2, 1989.

A section 1983 personal-injury claim accrues when the plaintiff knows of the injury and must be filed within Alaska's two-year period absent equitable tolling or estoppel.

Peters v. Jeffords · filed 2025-08-04

In Alaska, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. ... Here, the two-year statute of limitations had run as to the bunk bed incident, as the alleged bunk bed fall occurred in 2021, three years before this case was filed. ... Plaintiff was aware of his injury when he fell off the bunk bed, and the FAC fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff qualifies for equitable tolling or equitable estoppel under Alaska law that could overcome the applicable statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit for personal injury actions is subject to equitable estoppel when reliance on that limit would be unjust.

Groseth v. Ness · filed 1966-11-18

We are of the opinion that the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a prohibition against unjust reliance upon a statute of limitations is a salutary one and therefore adopt the rule for this jurisdiction.

Section 09.10.070’s two-year limit for personal injury actions is not tolled by a defendant’s absence from Alaska when substituted service is available.

Byrne v. Ogle · filed 1971-09-24

We hold that AS 09.10.130 did not apply to toll AS 09.10.070, the statute of limitations.

Section 09.10.070(3) gives unpaid prevailing wage claims a two-year filing period, which is equitably tolled by a DOL wage proceeding if the other tolling requirements are met.

Dayhoff v. Temsco Helicopters, Inc. · filed 1989-05-05(3)

The unpaid prevailing wage claims are governed by the two-year statute of limitations found in AS 09.10.070(3). ... We conclude that DOL proceedings are a form of quasi-judicial relief; therefore, filing a statutory wage claim with DOL equitably tolls the statute of limitations if the other requirements of that doctrine are established.

Fraudulent concealment may estop a defendant from invoking the two-year limitation when the plaintiff relied on the concealment and acted in time after discovering it.

Palmer v. Borg-Warner Corp. · filed 1992-09-25

We find Borg-Warner’s argument unpersuasive and conclude that Palmer’s pleadings satisfy the reliance element of equitable estoppel.

When fraudulent concealment supports equitable estoppel against the two-year tort limitation, inquiry notice depends on whether it would be utterly unreasonable for the plaintiff to remain unaware of the deception.

Waage v. Cutter Biological Division of Miles Laboratories, Inc. · filed 1996-11-22

Thus, only if it were “utterly unreasonable” for Waage to rely on the information and lack of information dispensed by Miles would Waage be charged with inquiry notice.

Section 09.10.070(a)’s two-year limit is equitably tolled while a claimant pursues an alternative remedy in federal court, including an appeal, when the requirements for equitable tolling are met.

Solomon v. Interior Regional Housing Authority · filed 2006-07-21(a)

They likewise agree that these claims were subject to a two-year statute of limitations under AS 09.10.070(a), which provides a two-year limitation period for claims based on statute. ... Because the statute of limitations on Solomon’s claims for unlawful retaliation was equitably tolled by pursuit of an alternative remedy in the federal courts, Solomon’s claims were timely filed.

The two-year tort limitations period under AS 09.10.070 is equitably tolled while a claimant pursues a contractual grievance process.

Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. · filed 2016-02-12

Alaska Airlines also argues conclusorily that Bernard’s policy-based claim is barred by the two-year tort statute of limitations, AS 09.10.070. Bernard was discharged on June 24, 2011, the decision of the secondary hearing is dated August 17, and Bernard filed his complaint two years later on August 16, 2013. His two-month pursuit of the grievance process equitably tolled the statute of limitations.