Opinion ID: 1116106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: exclusive liability provision

Text: Ehredt next argues that, even if he and DeHavilland are jointly and severally liable, the exclusive liability provision of the Workers' Compensation Act bars DeHavilland's contribution claim. We must therefore examine the interplay between AS 23.30.055 and AS 09.16.010. [6] When an employer secures compensation, a third party's cross-claim for contribution is barred by the exclusivity provision. State v. Wien Air Alaska, 619 P.2d 719 (Alaska 1980). The question before us is whether Wien controls when the employer has not complied with the act. The plain language of AS 23.30.055 arguably indicates that Wien applies and contribution is prohibited. The first sentence creates a blanket prohibition against actions at law by anyone entitled to recover damages from the employer. The second sentence creates a specific exception: if the employer fails to secure compensation the employee may maintain an action at law. Since the express ban on suits by all other people is not lifted, Ehredt reasons that DeHavilland's claim for contribution is barred even though Ehredt did not secure compensation. DeHavilland responds with a policy argument, contending that the legislature did not intend to grant statutory protection to a noncomplying employer. The exclusivity provision is an incentive for compliance, not a reward for noncompliance. We agree with DeHavilland that the employer should not receive the protection of the exclusivity provision when it has failed to secure payment. We therefore conclude that a noncomplying employer is not relieved from its duty to contribute under AS 09.16.010 by the exclusivity provision of AS 23.30.055.