Alaska Online Workman Compensation Coverage Checker

Workers’ Compensation Requirements for Employer
Requirements for Employers

The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act requires each employer having one or more employees in Alaska to get workers’ compensation insurance, unless the employer has been approved as a self insurer. Determining employee status is accomplished utilizing the relative-nature-of-the-work-test as set out in Alaska Regulation 8 AAC 45.890.

There are few exceptions to those who must be covered under a workers’ compensation policy. Generally speaking, those include: sole proprietors in a sole proprietorship; general partners in a partnership; executive officers in a nonprofit corporation, members in a member managed limited liability company, part-time baby-sitters, cleaning persons (non-commercial), harvest help and similar part-time/transient help, sports officials for amateur events, contract entertainers, commercial fishers, taxicab drivers whose compensation is by contractual arrangement, a participant in the Alaska temporary assistance program, and professional hockey team players and coaches if those persons are covered under a health care insurance plan. In addition, executive officers in a for-profit corporation may exempt themselves by filing an Executive Officer Waiver with the department.

Businesses get Insurance coverage from commercial insurance carriers. Employers should contact their insurance agent or broker to buy a workers’ compensation policy. Businesses unable to get coverage from an insurance company, may buy insurance through Alaska’s Assigned Risk Pool.  The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) administers Alaska Pools. Alaska does not have workers’ compensation group pools. Once an employer has coverage, they must give proof of workers’ comp insurance to the Division of Workers’ Compensation on form 07-6119 (usually submitted by the insurance company). There are huge civil and criminal penalties that apply to an employer who fails to keep up coverage and/or fail to pay compensation.

The the employer’s payroll, type of business risk (classification assignment), and the employer’s loss history determine the cost for coverage. If an employer believes that their premium is too high, or that their business is improperly classified, they can request arbitration from the NCCI, and the Alaska Review and Advisory Committee.

Alaska Online Workman Compensation Coverage Checker

So, who wants to know if a given employer has worker’s compensation coverage.  Employees want to know, because if they are hurt they would like insurance to pay for the hospital bills.  Property owners hiring contractors want to know because they are liable for injured workers if the contractor fails to insure his workers.  General contractors want to know because they hire subcontractors and need to know they are hiring insured workers.  Business owners want to know if their leased employees are actually covered by the employee leasing company.  Business owners also want to know that their competitors carry insurance — because they want to make sure the competition is paying their fair share of injured worker claims.  Alaska provides the following checker here:

Alaska Employer Workman Compensation Coverage Verification

This link takes you off site.  When clicking on the coverage verification link above, you will be leaving our site and going to an external web site not maintained by us or the Alaska Department of Labor.  This is the same site the Alaska Department of Labor would presently uses for verification.  The list does not include self insured businesses nor those employers for which coverage is provided on a statutory basis.  The site requires cookies and javascript to be enabled in order for it to function correctly.

If you are an employer and have been served with a Failure to Insure for Workers’ Compenstion Liablity, a discovery demand and give us a call at 907-375-9226.





Property Damage Lawyers Defeats Insurance Company Exclusion Claim

The Knowles owned rental property. Fidelity Co-operative Bank (Fidelity) owned the mortgage on the property.   Nova Casualty Company (Nova) insured the property. A 2008 tropical storm caused substantial damage to the building interior.   The Town  closed the building. The Knowles submitted a claim for reimbursement for the water damage with Nova, which denied the claim. Due to Nova’s denial of coverage the Knowles could not afford to repairs the building.  The building remained vacant and was vandalized. Nova also refused to cover the vandalism claim. The Knowles defaulted on their mortgage due to the lack of rent.  Rather than foreclosing In 2010, Fidelity, individually and as assignee of the Knowles, pursued the insurance claim against Nova for the property losses and the lost business income under the all-risk insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer. The  Appeals Court reversed and ordered the parties to trial on the damage claims.

The full decision is  here.

If you are a lenderproperty owner, property manager or real estate agent with a client that has incurred property damage that you think an insurance policy should cover, give us a call at 907-375-9226 for an appointment to review the matter.

Clayton Walker, JD

Anchorage Business Attorney

Alaska Law Offices, Inc.


Real Property Lawyer Wins Client a Right to Trial on HAMP Violation Claim

A real property lawyer filed a case to protect his client against a bank foreclosure action.  The homeowner lost the right to a trial on motion in the trial court.  The Real property lawyer appealed the case for the homeowner.

On August 8th, 2013, the 9th Circuit overturned the dismissal of a HAMP violation claim.  The court held that under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) the bank was contractually required to offer the homeowner a permanent mortgage modification after the homeowner complied with the banks Trial Period Plan (TPP).  The court held the homeowners complaint sufficient because they showed that the bank accepted and retained the payments demanded under the TPP, event though the bank failed to offer or notify the homeowner they were entitled to the modification as required by the TPP.

Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA doing business as America’s Servicing Company, Doing business as Wells Fargo Home Mortgage can be found here.


If you are an Alaskan homeowner, or a realtor with a homeowner listing, in default on a home mortgage or have recently received a notice of foreclosure and would like a Real Property Lawyer to help you consider your options give us a call at 907-375-9226 for an appointment.

Clayton Walker, JD


I-9 Employment Information — Does It Really Have to Be Filled Out?

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement audited Ketchikan Drywall Services, Inc. (“KDS”) personnel records — the I-9 Employment Information form.  The ICE determined that  KDS violated the Immigration and Nationality Act.  ICE proved 225 of the 271 alleged violations of § 1324a(b) and the issued a bill for the resulting civil penalty of $173,250.00.  KDS argued that it substantially complied with the requirements of the statute.  KDS had copies of the employees documents containing the relevant information.   ICE refused to consider those documents.   The court upheld the penalties.  The court held that retaining copies of the underlying documents was neither necessary nor did it comply with the regulations.

Don’t skimp on filling out the I-9.

To discuss this issue or other business or legal matters call us at 907-375-9226.








No. 11-73105

OCAHO No. 10A00034


On Petition for Review of an Order of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer

Submitted April 8, 2013* Seattle, Washington

Filed August 6, 2013

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, A. Wallace Tashima, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Tashima



Alaska Attorney Fees in Workmen’s Compensation Cases

Alaska Attorney Fees in Workmen's Compensation Cases
Ice Biking the Turnagain Arm, Anchorage, Alaska

Lawrence Trudell v. Brent and Debra Hibbert, (Alaska, 2013).  


In a case of first impression, the Alaska Supreme Court addressed the award of attorney fees against project owners.  Normally, worker’s compensation cases are brought as administrative matters.  However, the administrative board has no jurisdiction to foreclose the lien afforded to worker’s compensation claimants that bring claims against a project owner.  Accordingly the employee elected to bring his action before the Superior Court and was the prevailing party.

  1. Employees seeking attorneys fees in workmen’s compensation cases can recover full actual fees if they are the prevailing party, whether they are appealing an adverse board decision or bring an action directly to the Superior Court.
  2. Employees risk paying their adversaries attorney fees only if they are not the prevailing party; and, their asserted positions were “frivolous, unreasonable, or brought in bad faith.”

Alaska Attorney Headed to Annual ABA Conference

ABA Conference on Construction Law
Clayton Walker, Jr.


Who:  Clayton Walker, Jr. of Alaska Law Offices, Inc., 240 E. Tudor Ste. 230, Anchorage, AK 99503  907-375-9277.

What:  The American Bar Association (ABA) Forum on the Construction  Annual Meeting:  Themed: Surfing the Next Wave: The Future of Construction Law.

When April 25-27

Where:  DanaPoint, Calif.

Why:  Building the Best Construction Lawyers.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Forum on the Construction Industry will hold its annual meeting, entitled “Surfing the Next Wave: The Future of Construction Law and Practice,” April 25-27 in Dana Point, Calif. The event will focus on technological advances for construction projects; the future of government regulation for preference programs and workforce issues; the future of construction insurance, bonding, and construction law practice; and the globalization of construction alternative dispute resolution.




The construction industry is finally focusing on its lack of productivity and efficiencies compared to other industries and is looking to advanced technology to change the paradigm. This session looks at the potential roles of emerging super hi-technology in construction, including robotics, modular construction, new contracting and administration techniques, and some key legal issues that may arise with the use of these new and emerging construction concepts, methods and materials.



This session is an opportunity to learn about future trends in federal, state and local government procurement, and particularly the expansion of programs to involve disadvantaged, small and local, disabled veteran-owned, minority-owned, and women-owned contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers, to require use of U.S. and local products and services (Buy America, ARRA and state/local initiatives) to protect particular industry sectors (anti-bid shopping laws), and to provide greater access to bonding


What is the future of construction insurance and bonding and the law that governs them? Will domestic and international underwriting standards, coverages, and policy language begin to merge? Will there continue to be coverage for construction defects? Will subcontractor default insurance continue to make inroads into the surety market and will law governing it develop? Will legislatures eliminate the statutory requirements for bonds?



(Presented in conjunction with the ABA Law Practice Management Section)

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct now state that a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, “including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” This session showcases both hardware and software beneficial to a construction lawyer’s practice, while both in and out of the office. These new practice management tools have the potential to enhance client service many-fold, and are likely integral to the new paradigm that is “practicing construction law” in the 21st Century.



New technologies are revolutionizing the way projects are bid, negotiated, memorialized, and managed. This session examines the legal services that will likely be spawned by future advances in procurement and back office project management, such as internet-based procurement, reverse online auctions, on-line real time simultaneous contract drafting and



This session explores how the construction business is changing and where the practice of construction law is headed. Given the dramatic need for construction services in the developing world, how will this globalization of the industry impact U.S. construction lawyers? What effect will the emergence of the “non-firm” law firm, contract lawyers, and outsourcing of legal services have? How will growing pressure to control fees and costs drive law firms’ use of technology and the possible use of construction litigation funding? Future consumers of legal services will likely demand counsel with higher levels of specialization, so how can small firms and solo practice lawyers compete in a more segmented legal market?



The project may be in your backyard, but the architect is from Sweden, the general contractor is owned by a Spanish conglomerate, and the steel is from China. Your local project may use the FIDIC contract forms, not AIA; and the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods, not the UCC; and the New York Convention, not the Federal Arbitration Act, may be the governing law. Dispute resolution is as likely to be under ICC, ICDR, LCIA, or UNCITRAL rules as AAA. International norms are revolutionizing construction contracting and will influence the dispute resolution process. This session will explore the impacts of globalization on the future of domestic dispute resolution.


For more information on the event click here:



For more information regarding this seminar, you can contact Mr. Walker at or visit our website at

Mechanic’s and Materialmen Liens: Getting Paid in Alaska

Mechanic's Lien
You don’t need a mechanics lien if you’re just making cardboard forts.

Mechanic’s and Materialmen Liens: Getting Paid. 

This outline is very brief and does not include provisions concerning public works contracts under the US Miller Act or the Alaska statutes.  It also does not address any statutory changes subsequent to the author date.  It also does not address any issues with respect to court interpretation.  This information is provided for general information purposes so that you can learn about the general information to protect your business and know the importance of seeking counsel within thirty days of job completion when you have not been paid.  Most important take away is time.  You only have 120 days from last working on the property to assert your lien.  You only have six months to sue on the lien claim unless you extend it.  The time period used to be 90 days but was extended by statute effective September 7, 2010.  These rights are among the post powerful collection tools at a contractor’s disposal.  The following pages address twelve significant aspects of construction lien enforcement.

Continue reading “Mechanic’s and Materialmen Liens: Getting Paid in Alaska”