Thus, the Alaska statutes do not allow the nondependent sibling of a wrongful death victim to assert a wrongful death claim for nonpecuniary harm. AS 09.55.580(a); Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272, 1273 (Alaska 1992) ("When the decedent is not survived by dependents, the statute limits recovery to pecuniary loss,").Cf.

AS 09.55.580(a) (stating that money recovered under statute "shall be exclusively for the benefit of the decedent's spouse and children . . . or other dependents").See, e.g., Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272, 1272 (Alaska 1992) ("Alaska's wrongful death statute . . . creates a dichotomy between actions in which the decedent left dependents and actions in which the decedent did not."); Horsford v. Estate of Horsford, 561 P.2d 722, 727 (Alaska 1977) ("Our Wrongful Death Act explicitly provides for only one instance, namely, when there are no statutory beneficiaries, where the damages recovered are to be administered as part of the decedent's estate."). We held to the contrary in Kulawik v. ERA Jet Alaska.

But most courts recognize the inconsistency in permitting parental consortium claims but denying those for filial consortium. See, e.g., Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272, 1274 (Alaska 1992) ("We have already held that a wife has the right to sue for loss of 'care, comfort, companionship and solace' resulting from an injury to her husband, and that a child is entitled to loss of consortium damages when his parent is tortiously injured. To now hold that a parent is not entitled to recover loss of society for the death of his or her child would run counter to this line of precedent."); Giuliani v. Guiler, 951 S.W.2d 318, 321 (Ky. 1997); Berger v. Weber, 303 N.W.2d 424, 434 (Mich. 1981) (Levin, J., dissenting); Pence v. Fox, 813 P.2d 429, 433 (Mont. 1991); Gallimore v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 617 N.E.2d 1052, 1057 (Ohio 1993).

See generally Mattingly v. Sheldon Jackson Coll., 743 P.2d 356, 365 (Alaska 1987).See AS 09.15.010; Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272, 1273 (Alaska 1992) (AS 09.15.010 creates parental cause of action for loss of child separate from wrongful death action brought by child's estate). In negotiating the Wolds' claims, then, Allstate recognized and accepted that the Wolds were asserting each of their claims against both Smith's liability and UM/UIM policies: Allstate thus assumed that the estate could potentially recover $100,000 plus add-ons (attorney's fees and interest) on its wrongful death claim under each of Smith's policies and that Cynthia could potentially recover an additional $100,000 plus add-ons on her bystander NIED claim under each of those policies.

See Iowa Code Ann. § 613.15A (West 2018); Mass. Ann. Laws c. 231, § 85X (LexisNexis 2009); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1055 (West 2015); R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-41 (c) (2012); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 1492 (b) (Cum. Supp. 2024); Wn. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.24.010 (West Cum. Supp. 2025); see also Gillispiev. Beta Construction Co., 842 P.2d 1272, 1273-74 (Alaska 1992) (construing § 09.15.010 of Alaska Statutes); Haywardv. Yost, 72 Idaho 415, 425, 242 P.2d 971 (1952) (construing §§ 5-310 and 5-311 of Idaho Code). We have included in this category states that have recognized a cause of action for loss of filial consortium arising from the wrongful death of a child but have not resolved the question of whether there is a cause of action for parents of an injured child.

See, e.g., Sizemore, 422 N.W.2d at 674 n. 27; Powell v. American Motors Corp., 834 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. 1992); McCaskill v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 419 Pa. Super. 313, 615 A.2d 382, 386 (1982); Boucher, 850 P.2d at 1186.See Idaho Code § 5-310; La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231 § 85X; R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-41; Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.010; Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992) (Alaska Stat. § 09.15.010 creates separate parental cause of. action that includes right to recover loss of society damages); Madison v. Colby, 348 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1984) (recognition of claim of loss of filial consortium based on Ia. R. Civ. P. 8). Jurisdictions that have judicially adopted the claim view the adoption of consortium claims as within the responsibility of judicial authority.

Recovery is permitted pursuant to statutory language (i.e. "general loss" or "pecuniary loss") in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. See Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992); Frank v. Superior Court, 150 Ariz. 228, 722 P.2d 955 (1986); Perry v. Medina, 192 Cal.App.3d 603, 237 Cal.Rptr. 532 (5th Dist. 1987); Checketts v. Bowman, 70 Idaho 463, 220 P.2d 682 (1950); Bullard v. Barnes, 102 Ill.2d 505, 82 Ill.Dec. 448, 468 N.E.2d 1228 (1984); Vincent v. Morgan's L. T.R. S.S. Co., 140 La. 1027, 74 So. 541 (1917); Fussner v. Andert, 261 Minn. 347, 113 N.W.2d 355 (1961); Louisville N.R. Co. v. Whisenant, 214 Miss. 421, 58 So.2d 908 (1952); Davis v. Smith, 152 Mont. 170, 448 P.2d 133 (1968); Selders v. Armentrout, 190 Neb. 275, 207 N.W.2d 686 (1973); Green v. Bittner, 85 N.J. 1, 424 A.2d 210 (1980); Saguid v. Kingston Hosp., 213 A.D.2d 770, 623 N.Y.S.2d 341 (N.Y.App. Div. 1995), appeal dismissed, 87 N.Y.2d 861, 639 N.Y.S.2d 312, 662 N.E.2d 793, leave to appeal dismissed by 88 N.Y.2d 868, 644 N.Y.S.2d 686, 667 N.E.2d 337 (1996); Hopkins v. McBane, 427 N.W.2d 85 (N.D. 1988); Gomillion v. Forsythe, 218 S.C. 211, 62 S.E.2d 297 (1950); Anderson v. Lale, 88 S.D. 111,

Recovery is permitted pursuant to statutory language (i.e. "general loss" or "pecuniary loss") in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. See Gillispie v. Beta Constr. Co., 842 P.2d 1272 (Alaska 1992); Frank v. Superior Court, 722 P.2d 955 (Ariz. 1986); Perry v. Medina, 237 Cal.Rptr. 532 (5th Dist. 1987); Checketts v. Bowman, 220 P.2d 682 (Idaho 1950); Bullard v. Barnes, 468 N.E.2d 1228 (Ill. 1984); Vincent v. Morgan's L. T.R. S.S. Co., 74 So. 541 (La. 1917); Fussner v. Andert, 113 N.W.2d 355 (Minn.