Alaska Supreme Court Clarifies Workers’ Compensation Coverage in Friendship-Based Employment Case

In a significant decision, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that hiring a friend for work on another friend’s property does not exempt the employer from workers’ compensation coverage. The case, Amos v. Tidwell, involved a worker who fell from a roof while helping a builder. Despite the builder’s claim that the worker was a friend helping out, the court determined there was an employment relationship warranting compensation coverage.

The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board initially dismissed the worker’s claim, citing a "buddy exemption," which the Appeals Commission upheld. However, the Supreme Court referenced Nickels v. Napolilli to clarify that only the legislature can define exempt employee categories. The court also dismissed the argument that the builder’s work fell under consumptive use, as the work was performed on another’s property and thus considered productive.

The court’s ruling emphasizes that personal relationships do not negate workers’ compensation obligations when an employment relationship is evident. This decision underscores the importance of proper classification and coverage for all workers, regardless of personal connections.