Opinion ID: 2552631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Action for Contribution Under Subsection .822(j) May Be Filed When a Subsection .822(a) Action Is Brought but Accrues for Purposes of the Statute of Limitations When Judgment Is Entered or Settlement Is Reached.

Text: One of the certified questions before us is when a cause of action for contribution accrues under subsection .822(j). In 1989, when the legislature amended subsection.822(a) to mirror CERCLA, it also enacted a new subsection, AS 46.03.822(j), that gave defendants an action for contribution: A person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable under (a) of this section during or after a civil action under (a) of this section. ... In resolving claims for contribution under this section, the court may allocate damages and costs among liable parties using equitable factors determined to be appropriate by the court. This subsection does not diminish the right of a person to bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action under (a) of this section. [46] The statutory language is clear that any party named in a direct subsection .822(a) action may commence an action for contribution at any time during or after the direct action. [47] We nevertheless conclude that even though subsection .822(j) allows a contribution action to be brought while a subsection.822(a) action is still in progress, the contribution action does not accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations until the subsection.822(a) action concludes. Under CERCLA, an action for contribution accrues according to a contribution-specific statute of limitations, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(3). Alaska has no analog to this provision on its books. Because the legislature unreservedly specified that contribution actions may be brought after a subsection.822(a) action concludes, and since an action under the subsection .822(a) could conceivably remain pending for many years after its inception, the statute of limitations on such actions cannot realistically begin to run upon commencement of the action under subsection.822(a). [48] Moreover, interpreting subsection .822(j) to authorize a contribution action accruing upon or after judgment comports with general contribution case law elsewhere, [49] as well as with our own case law governing contribution in other contexts. For example, in Providence Washington Insurance Co. of Alaska v. McGee we recognized that a claim for contribution is substantively separate from the underlying tort and does not arise until the contribution claimant has paid more than his or her proportionate share of the total claim. [50] In the absence of statutory guidance other than the language of subsection .822(j), and because subsection .822(j) specifically authorizes an action for contribution to be brought during or after a direct action under subsection.822(a), we conclude that a contribution action under subsection .822(j) should not accrue for statute of limitations purposes until the direct cost recovery ends, either by judgment, settlement, or the conclusion of an administrative action. [51]