Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020

Section 09.17.020(b)(2) permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows reckless indifference to another person's interests; malice is not required.

Maddox v. Hardy · filed 2008-07-11(b)(2)

Alaska Statute 09.17.020 governs awards of punitive damages. The statute provides that the plaintiff must establish "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." ... A showing of malice is not required. ... The jury reasonably could have determined that Lorenz acted with reckless indifference to Maddox's interests.

Section 09.17.020(b)(2) requires reckless indifference for punitive damages; a mistaken shooting without deliberate disregard for the victim’s safety does not meet that standard.

Millo v. Delius · filed 2012-05-09(b)(2)

While the shooting may have been the result of inadvertence, mistake, an error of judgment, or incompetence, so as to constitute negligence, the evidence would not permit “a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict” 70 that Dr. Delius acted in deliberate disregard of Mr. Millo’s safety, so as to constitute recklessness under AS 09.17.020(b)(2).

Punitive damages may be awarded for outrageous conduct or reckless indifference; a finding of outrageous conduct makes it unnecessary to decide whether the defendant was recklessly indifferent.

Brandner v. Hudson · filed 2007-11-09(b)(1)-(2)

But AS 09.17.020(b)(1)-(2) provides for punitive damages where conduct is outrageous or evidences reckless indifference. Because we affirm the trial court's determination that Dr. Brandner's conduct was outrageous, we need not reach Dr. Brandner's argument that he did not act with reckless indifference.

A punitive damages claim cannot go to the jury without evidence of malice or reckless indifference.

Hagen Insurance, Inc. v. Roller · filed 2006-01-20(b)

We discern no malice or reckless indifference on the part of Hagen. The superior court therefore did not err by granting the directed verdict motion on the issue of punitive damages.

Section 09.17.020(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct to support punitive damages.

Anchorage Chrysler Center, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp. · filed 2009-12-11(b)

To support a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must show "by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct was outrageous, such as acts done with malice, bad motive, or reckless indifference to the interests of another."

Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct or reckless indifference to another person’s interests.

Pouzanova v. Morton · filed 2014-06-20(b)

Awards of punitive damages require proof by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant’s conduct “was outrageous, including acts done with malice or bad motives,” or that it “evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person.” ... We hold, therefore, that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Pouzanova on Morton’s punitive damages claim.

Punitive damages require clear and convincing proof that the defendant acted outrageously or with reckless indifference to another person’s interests.

Zerbe v. Collette · filed 2023-03-22(b)

Here though, no separate proceeding is necessary because Collette has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Zerbe’s conduct was either outrageous or evidenced reckless indifference to Collette’s interests.

Section 09.17.020(e) permits a court to order parties to have evidence relevant to the amount of punitive damages available for production after the initial trial if punitive damages are allowed.

Tundra Mountain Holdings, LLC v. Markel Insurance Company · filed 2023-06-13(e)

Defendant has not advanced any persuasive reason why the court should not enter an order appropriate to this case based upon AS 09.17.020(e).

Section 09.17.020(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct or reckless indifference to another person’s interests before punitive damages may be awarded.

James Williams and Susie Williams v. John Strong and Municipality of Anchorage, John Strong v. James Williams, Susie Williams, and Municipality of Anchorage · filed 2024-09-06(b)

To award punitive damages, Alaska law requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant’s conduct was either “outrageous, including acts done with malice or bad motives” or “evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person.” ... Because the superior court found Strong did not meet the evidentiary burden necessary to prevail on his punitive damages claim, even if an independent tort did allow for such damages, we affirm the court’s denial of Strong’s claim for punitive damages.

Punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence.

Barber v. National Bank of Alaska · filed 1991-07-26

Punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence. AS 09.17.020.

Section 09.17.020 requires clear and convincing evidence to support a punitive damages award.

Johnson & Higgins of Alaska Inc. v. Blomfield · filed 1995-12-15

An award of punitive damages must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. AS 09.17.020.

Punitive damages under § 09.17.020 must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Alaska Marine Pilots v. Hendsch · filed 1997-12-12

Under AS 09.17.020, punitive damages must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 09.17.020 requires clear and convincing proof for a punitive damages claim.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547 v. Alaska Utility Construction, Inc. · filed 1999-03-26

The standard of proof applicable to a claim for punitive damages is the clear and convincing standard.

Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct or reckless indifference to another person’s interests; proof by a preponderance is insufficient.

Burton v. Fountainhead Development, Inc. · filed 2017-03-17(b)

To recover punitive damages he had to prove 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.”... We cannot say the court clearly erred in drawing the line where it did. We therefore affirm the court’s denial of punitive damages.

Section 09.17.020 requires clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct, such as malice, bad motives, or reckless indifference, to support punitive damages.

Ace v. Aetna Life Insurance · filed 1998-03-12

To support punitive damages under Alaska law, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the wrongdoer’s conduct “was outrageous, such as acts done with malice or bad motives or reckless indifference to the interests of another person.”

Section 09.17.020 permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows outrageous conduct, including reckless indifference to another person's interests.

Ace v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · filed 1998-05-07

To support punitive damages under Alaska law, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the wrongdoer's conduct "was outrageous, such as acts done with malice or bad motives or reckless indifference to the interests of another person." Alaska Stat. § 09.17.020; 14 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nicholson, 777 P.2d 1152, 1158 (Alaska 1989) (quoting Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Day, 594 P.2d 38, 46 (Alaska 1979), modified on reh'g, 615 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1980), overruled on other grounds by Dura Corp. v. Harned, 703 P.2d 396 (Alaska 1985)).

Section 09.17.020(b) requires clear and convincing proof for an award of punitive damages.

Snead v. Wright · filed 2025-07-10(b)

In Alaska, the standard of proof applicable to a claim for punitive damages is the clear and convincing standard.

Section 09.17.020(b) permits punitive damages only on clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct or reckless indifference to another person’s interests.

Darden · filed 2026-03-09(b)

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.

Section 09.17.020 requires clear and convincing evidence to support an award of punitive damages.

Chizmar v. MacKie · filed 1995-05-19

This hesitanee to award punitive damages is reflected in AS 09.17.020, which provides that “[p]unitive damages may not be awarded in an action ... unless supported by clear and convincing evidence.” ... In the present case, the superior court did not err in granting a directed verdict to Dr. Mackie on the issue of punitive damages.

Section 09.17.020 requires clear and convincing evidence of malice, bad faith, or reckless indifference to support punitive damages.

Ace v. Aetna Life Insurance · filed 1999-03-29

Under Alaska law, a plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with malice, bad faith, or reckless indifference in order to support an award of punitive damages.

Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct or reckless indifference to another person’s interests.

Pederson v. Barnes · filed 2006-07-21(b)

In order for a jury to make an award of punitive damages, AS 09.17.020(b) requires there to be clear and convincing evidence of either outrageousness, which includes acts done with malice or bad motives, ... or “reckless indifference to the interest of another person.” ... Given the absence of evidence that Peder-son acted with reckless indifference to Barnes’s interests, we conclude that the denial of Pederson’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages was an abuse of discretion.

Section 09.17.020(b) requires clear and convincing proof of outrageous conduct for punitive damages; negligent misrepresentation alone does not qualify.

Southern Alaska Carpenters Health & Security Trust Fund v. Jones · filed 2008-03-07(b)

Punitive damages may only he awarded based on proof by clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct, including acts done with malice or bad motives, or conduct that evidences reckless indifference to the interests of‘ another. AS 09.17.020(b). Here the trial court's conclusions that Janssen and the Trust were liable only for negligent misrepresentation precludes an award of punitive damages.

Punitive damages against insurers under § 09.17.020 require sufficient evidence of bad faith.

Hinkle v. CRUM & FORSTER HOLDING, INC. · filed 2010-06-14

Again, given the uncertainties regarding insurance coverage and the Bilodeaus’ liability, and in light of the defense provided by the insurance carriers to the Bilodeaus, there does not exist sufficient evidence of bad faith as required by AS 09.17.020 to justify punitive damages under the unique facts of this case. Defendants’ request for summary judgment on this issue is therefore GRANTED.

Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted outrageously or with reckless indifference to another person’s interests.

Madonna v. Tamarack Air, Ltd. · filed 2013-04-12(b)

“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.”

Section 09.17.020(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct or reckless indifference sufficiently outrageous to justify punitive damages.

Blake v. Guthy-Renker, LLC · filed 2013-08-13(b)

However, even when all justifiable inferences are- drawn in favor of Ms. Blake on these disputed topics for purposes of this motion, ■ reasonable jurors could not find by the requisite clear and convincing evidence standard that the 4-month delay in notifying consumers, or any other conduct by Defendants, was so outrageous that it could justify an award of punitive damages.

Section 09.17.020 permits a punitive damages award for reckless indifference to another person’s interests, and allegations established by default can provide a sufficient basis for an award.

Haines v. Comfort Keepers, Inc. · filed 2017-03-24(b)

Alaska Statute 09.17.020 allows an award of punitive damages “if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s conduct . . . was outrageous,” malicious, “done with . . . bad motives,” or “reckless[ly] indifferen[t] to the interest of another person.” ... They reasonably establish Witzleben’s reckless indifference to Verna’s health, safety, and property interests and hence are a sufficient basis for an award of punitive damages.

Section 09.17.020 delays evidence of a defendant’s financial condition until the jury determines that the plaintiff is eligible for punitive damages.

Lindfors v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-04-27(e)

Thus, in accordance with Alaska Statute 09.17.020, the Court will exclude such evidence from Phase II until and unless the jury makes an initial determination in Phase II that Ms. Lindfors is eligible for punitive damages.

Section 09.17.020(c)(6) makes a defendant’s financial condition relevant to the jury’s determination of the amount of punitive damages.

Tundra Mountain Holdings, LLC v. Markel Insurance Company · filed 2023-08-10(c)(6)

However, as plaintiff points out, AS 09.17.020(c)(6) provides that a defendant’s financial condition is relevant to a jury’s consideration of the amount of punitive damages.

Section 09.17.020 applies to claims accruing after August 7, 1997, and cannot supply public policy for earlier claims.

Norcon, Inc. v. Kotowski · filed 1999-02-19

The statute applies to all cases accruing after its effective date, August 7, 1997. Ch. 26, § 55, SLA 1997. We are foreclosed from drawing on the statute as a source of public policy applicable to cases accruing before the effective date because the legislature declared its intent "as a matter of public policy to ... ensure that this act does not apply to or in any way have an effect on existing litigation or a civil cause of action that accrues before the effective date of this Act.” Ch. 26, § 1, SLA 1997.

Section 09.17.020(c)'s punitive damages factors do not apply to events before its August 7, 1997 effective date.

Mapco Express, Inc. v. Faulk · filed 2001-06-15(c)

AS 09.17.020(c) also provides a list of factors to consider; however, this statute is not applicable because all of the events in this appeal took place before the effective date of the statute, August 7, 1997.

Subsection (f)'s punitive damages cap applies to a retaliatory wrongful discharge claim that is not an employment discrimination claim under AS 18.80.220.

Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc. · filed 2005-10-28(f)

Because we conclude that AS 09.17.020(h) does not apply here, we remand for application of AS 09.17.020(f).

Section 09.17.020’s punitive damages caps do not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial because they do not re-examine the jury’s determination of damages.

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

The decision to place a cap on damages awarded is a policy choice and not a re-examination of the factual question of damages determined by the jury. Therefore, the damages caps under AS 09.17.010 and .020 do not violate article I, section 16 of the Alaska Constitution or the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A court errs by instructing the jury on § 09.17.020’s punitive damages caps because the amounts may suggest a range for the award.

Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Ass'n v. Anderson · filed 2002-09-06

Because the defamatory conduct at issue here took place in 1998, the jury's award of punitive damages is governed by AS 09.17.020. ... We agree with the appellants that instructing the jury on the punitive damages caps was error. Putting the caps before the jury carried a substantial risk of suggesting the range of appropriate punitive awards.

In deciding whether to award punitive damages, a court may consider whether other damages already provide sufficient deterrence and punishment.

Deloycheet, Inc. v. Beach (In re Beach) · filed 2017-04-07(c)(7)

In determining the amount of punitive damages to be awarded, the fact finder may consider several factors, including the defendant’s financial condition and “the total deterrence of other damages ... imposed on the defendant as a result of the conduct.” 206 ... Under the facts of this case, the court finds that the deterrence and punishment goals served by an award of punitive damages are already met by the treble damage, cost and full attorney fee awards given under the UTPA. For this reason, no punitive damages will be awarded.

Section 09.17.020(c) permits the fact finder to consider the defendant’s financial gain when setting a punitive damages award.

Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez · filed 2017-08-25(c)

Alaska Statute 09.17.020 permits the fact finder to consider “the amount of financial gain” when making a punitive damages award, and that appears to have been the context of Gonzalez’s attorney’s statement.

Section 09.17.020(c) identifies seven factors relevant to setting an appropriate punitive damages award.

Casciola v. F.S. Air Service, Inc. · filed 2005-09-23(c)

Alaska Statute 09.17.020(c) identifies seven factors relevant to the determination of an appropriate punitive damages award: ... These factors are well-represented in this case.

Section 09.17.020(c) requires a court determining punitive damages to consider the applicable statutory factors.

Asher v. ALKAN SHELTER, LLC. · filed 2009-07-31(c)

On remand, the trial court must consider any applicable factors listed in AS 09.17.020(c) in reaching its decision on punitive damages.

Proof of reckless indifference under subsection (b) makes punitive damages available but does not require an award.

Lamb v. Anderson · filed 2006-11-17(b)

That Anderson is estopped from denying recklessness under AS 09.17.020(b) means that Lamb is eligible for punitive damages rather than that punitive damages must be imposed.

Reckless indifference makes a plaintiff eligible for punitive damages under subsection (b), but the jury may decline an award after considering the factors in subsection (c).

Lamb v. Anderson · filed 2005-12-22(b), (c)

That Anderson is estopped from denying recklessness under AS 09.17.020(b) means that Lamb is eligible for punitive damages rather than that punitive damages must be imposed. The inquiry under AS 09.17.020(c) remains open and the superior court must instruct the jury on the factors identified in that statute. Because AS 09.17.020(b) provides that the jury “may” award punitive damages under AS 09.17.020(c) once reckless indifference has been proved, the court should also instruct the jury that the inquiry under AS 09.17.020(c) permits, but does not require, an award of punitive damages.

The state's fifty percent share of a punitive damages award is reduced by a proportional share of the plaintiff's contingent attorney's fee.

Anderson v. CENTRAL BERING SEA FISH. ASS'N · filed 2003-10-16(j)

Two statutory sections are relevant to this issue. The first is AS 09.17.020(j), which mandates that "fifty percent of the award [of punitive damages] be deposited into the general fund of the state." ... For the above reasons the superior court did not err in deducting forty percent in fees from the state's portion of the punitive damages award.

Section 09.17.020(j) constitutionally requires courts to allocate half of a punitive damages award to the state.

State v. Carpenter · filed 2007-10-26(j)

Likewise, it is within the legislature's power to mandate the award of a portion of the punitive damages to the state. Just as the legislature may require the trial court to cap the jury's damages awards, it may require the court to allocate half of the punitive damages award to the state.

The State's interest in its share of punitive damages arises when a verdict awarding punitive damages is returned, and the State may then intervene to protect that interest.

Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc. · filed 2009-04-10(j)

Taken as a whole, this subsection is most sensibly interpreted to mean that before a verdict is returned, the State may not intervene in a claim seeking punitive damages; however, once a verdict for punitive damages is returned, the State's interest in punitive damages comes into existence and the State may intervene to protect this interest.

Section 09.17.020(b) permits punitive damages without a compensatory damages award when an equitable remedy intended to make the plaintiff whole has been awarded and the subsection’s requirements are met.

Lockhart v. Draper · filed 2009-06-26(b)

Given the principles announced in Haskins, the court did not err in finding that punitive damages could be awarded if an equitable remedy intended to make the plaintiff whole had been awarded and if the requirements of AS 09.17.020(b) are met.

Section 09.17.020(a) does not limit a trial judge’s discretion under Civil Rule 42(b) to divide a punitive damages trial into separate phases.

Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP · filed 2016-04-29(a)

Here, both the title and text of AS 09.17.020 convince us that it did not intend to alter a trial judge's discretion under Civil Rule 42(b), so that discretion remains intact.

Section 09.17.020 requires a separate proceeding to determine the amount of punitive damages, but failure to object to its omission waives the issue on appeal.

Adkins v. Collens · filed 2019-07-12

Maxim also argues that the superior court's punitive damages award should be reversed because the court never held a separate proceeding to determine the punitive damages amount, as required by AS 09.17.020. But Maxim failed to object to this error in either of its post-trial motions responsive to the superior court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Failing to contemporaneously object to the superior court's procedural error waives the issue for appeal.