Insurance Law

  • Levi v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development In Levi v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that it is fraudulent for an individual to knowingly fail to report earnings over 50 dollars per week when collecting unemployment insurance benefits under section 23.20.360 of the Alaska Statutes.  Levi received unemployment insurance benefits intermittently between 2010 and 2014. ...
  • Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co. In Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co., the supreme court held that the “reasonable” interpretation of an insurance policy involves an examination of  “(1) the language of the disputed provisions in the policy, (2) other provisions in the policy, (3) extrinsic evidence, and (4) case law interpreting similar provisions.” Hahn was stopped at a red ...
  • Ray Klein, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund In Ray Klein, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund, the district court held that state law insurance claims are preempted by ERISA when they are rooted in an ERISA plan’s definition of the scope of covered charges. The Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund (“Fund”) was created under ...
  • Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C. In Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C., the supreme court held Alaska law prohibits insurance policies that reimburse insurers for attorneys fees and costs of defense claims they are obligated to defend, even when the insured accepts the insurer’s explicit reservation of rights, and the claim is later determined to be ...
  • Devine v. Great Divide Insurance Co.   In Devine v. Great Divide Insurance Co., Chatari, a business owner, had general commercial liability insurance, but ...
  • Christianson v. Conrad-Houston Insurance   In Christianson v. Conrad-Houston Insurance, Conrad-Houston Insurance (“CHI”) sent Christianson a letter stating that he should ...
  • Lockwood v. Geico General Insurance Co. In Lockwood v. Geico General Insurance Co Lockwood sought payment from ...
  • United Services Automobile Association v. Neary In United Services Automobile Association v. Neary, The parents of the victims sued the minor, ...
  • SOP, Inc. v. State, Department of Natural Resources In SOP, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, The Nancy Lake State Recreation Area (the “Park”) granted numerous special use permits that allowed private land owners to use ATVs on ...
  • McDonnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. In McDonnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., State Farm, ...

Insurance Law

  • Levi v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development In Levi v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that it is fraudulent for an individual to knowingly fail to report earnings over 50 dollars per week when collecting unemployment insurance benefits under section 23.20.360 of the Alaska Statutes.  Levi received unemployment insurance benefits intermittently between 2010 and 2014. ...
  • Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co. In Hahn v. Geico Choice Ins. Co., the supreme court held that the “reasonable” interpretation of an insurance policy involves an examination of  “(1) the language of the disputed provisions in the policy, (2) other provisions in the policy, (3) extrinsic evidence, and (4) case law interpreting similar provisions.” Hahn was stopped at a red ...
  • Ray Klein, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund In Ray Klein, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund, the district court held that state law insurance claims are preempted by ERISA when they are rooted in an ERISA plan’s definition of the scope of covered charges. The Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund (“Fund”) was created under ...
  • Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C. In Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C., the supreme court held Alaska law prohibits insurance policies that reimburse insurers for attorneys fees and costs of defense claims they are obligated to defend, even when the insured accepts the insurer’s explicit reservation of rights, and the claim is later determined to be ...
  • Devine v. Great Divide Insurance Co.   In Devine v. Great Divide Insurance Co., Chatari, a business owner, had general commercial liability insurance, but ...
  • Christianson v. Conrad-Houston Insurance   In Christianson v. Conrad-Houston Insurance, Conrad-Houston Insurance (“CHI”) sent Christianson a letter stating that he should ...
  • Lockwood v. Geico General Insurance Co. In Lockwood v. Geico General Insurance Co Lockwood sought payment from ...
  • United Services Automobile Association v. Neary In United Services Automobile Association v. Neary, The parents of the victims sued the minor, ...
  • SOP, Inc. v. State, Department of Natural Resources In SOP, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, The Nancy Lake State Recreation Area (the “Park”) granted numerous special use permits that allowed private land owners to use ATVs on ...
  • McDonnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. In McDonnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., State Farm, ...