Like many other states, the State of Alaska has some peculiar procedural rules and laws which are not found in most other states.  Some of these unique features are pointed out here in the hope that this will be helpful to you.  Rather than attempting to recite verbatim the rule, case or statute in question, we refer you to the Alaska Legal Resource Center.  Since that site updates this material periodically, it would be duplication of effort for us to do the same.  Following are some of the more common rules, statutes etc.

Unique Rules

Rule 82 - This rule has to do with attorney fees.  The purpose of the rule is to partially compensate the prevailing party in litigation.  The prevailing party can be either the plaintiff or the defendant.  Most of the litigation and amendments have revolved around the determination of the prevailing party and the adequacy of compensation.  The rule is amended often - much more often than most - so that one should be careful in using only the latest edition of the rule and annotations to it.  The purpose of the rule apparently has been to limit litigation and to partially redress losses sustained by those who are confronted with ill founded or facetious litigation.  The rule has been only partially successful.

Civil Rule 26

Discovery Rules

Statutes

Cases

CHI of Alaska, Inc. v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 844 P.2d 1113 (Alaska 1993) - On occasion an insurance company may wish to defend under a reservation of rights.  The Alaska Supreme Court believes that defense counsel appointed by the insurance company cannot properly protect the interests of the insured under such a situation.  Therefore the insured is given the right to select counsel of its own choosing, at the expense of the insurance company.  The insurance industry argued that this would result in high litigation defense costs and might result in the appointment by the insured of counsel not well versed in the area of litigation and defense practices.  For this reason, the Alaska legislature promulgated AS 21.89.100, which deals with these and other issues by establishing minimum standards in the area of expertise and fees.  At least some insurance companies have recently complained that the statute does little to actually correct problems created by the CHI case, and therefore the industry may approach the legislature for further remedial action.  Although a reservation of rights should be issued when justified and when necessary, one should be circumspect in the use of this device and should be aware of the significant ramifications of doing so.