State, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, Division of Insurance v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
262 P.3d 593
Alaska2011Background
- Alyeska Pipeline contracted with Liberty Mutual to create a non-construction OCIP covering Alyeska and contractors for three years beginning January 2002, renewed for 2005.
- Six contractors enrolled; covered services include maintenance and support (not construction).
- AS 21.36.065(a) restricts OCIPs to major construction projects; definitions in (c) tailor who is a project owner and what constitutes an OCIP.
- Legislative history shows the bill was framed to limit OCIPs to construction and not to ongoing maintenance programs, with testimony emphasizing construction-only scope.
- Division issued a cease and desist in 2006; ALJ found the Liberty Mutual OCIP not governed by AS 21.36.065; deputy director reversed; superior court reversed the deputy.
- Alaska Supreme Court affirms the superior court, holding AS 21.36.065 does not apply to Alyeska’s non-construction OCIP and that the statute was either misdrafted or intended only for construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does AS 21.36.065(a) govern Alyeska's non-construction OCIP? | Division argues statute covers all OCIPs, including non-construction. | Alyeska contends statute targets construction OCIPs only; non-construction OCIPs fall outside. | Statute does not govern non-construction OCIPs. |
| Should legislative history compel extending the statute to non-construction OCIPs? | Division relies on history to show broader intent. | Alyeska argues history shows construction-only intent and misdrafting concerns. | Legislative history indicates construction-only scope; cannot reinterpret to include non-construction OCIPs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Premera Blue Cross v. State, Dept. of Commerce, Community & Econ. Dev., Div. of Ins., 171 P.3d 1110 (Alaska 2007) (statutory interpretation de novo; legislative history and purpose considered)
- Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010) (interpretation of defined terms within statutory framework)
- State v. Campbell, 536 P.2d 105 (Alaska 1975) (limits court rewriting statutes; assumes legislature means what it says)