Idaho Supreme Court Reaffirms Insurance Policy Limits

Earlier this year, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld a ruling in Lanningham v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho, that clarified underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage limitations. The court affirmed that non-resident adult children do not qualify as “insured” under their parent’s UIM policy and that an insured’s estate cannot claim benefits for wrongful death.... View Post

Insurance Companies Should Be Aware Of Idaho Code § 29-113 

April 25, 2023 Insurance companies may often feel incentivized to seek early settlement with a person who has suffered a personal injury. However, in Idaho, there is a potential risk that insurers should be aware of before doing so. Under Idaho Code § 29-113, a person who enters into an agreement within 15 days after... View Post

Thoughts on Proof of Loss

March 21, 2023 Idaho Code § 41-1839 is a terrifying statute. Under that statute, any insurer who fails to pay someone amounts owed within 30 days after a proof of loss has been furnished (or within 60 days if the policy is for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage) must pay attorney fees. This language seems... View Post

When Precedent Isn’t Precedent

September 21, 2022 In the legal world, we often think in terms of precedent or stare decisis. This general rule requires that when the Supreme Court has decided on an issue, that ruling applies to all future cases on the same issue. “When there is controlling precedent on questions of Idaho law the rule of... View Post

Insurance And Attorney Fees

June 28, 2022 Idaho’s attorney fee rules begin with the principle that everyone pays for their own attorney. Stated another way, “Idaho follows the ‘American Rule’ of attorney fees, which requires a party requesting attorney fees on appeal to cite either statutory or contractual authority in support.” Mortensen v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 149 Idaho... View Post

DOG-BITE RELATED INJURIES ARE ON THE RISE IN IDAHO

May 12, 2022 Here are some of the highlights from the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare’s recent press release that states dog-bite related injuries are on the rise in Idaho. DOG BITE CLAIMS IN IDAHO – PART 1 “[I]n Idaho, all dogs, regardless of breed or size, are presumed to be harmless domestic animals.”... View Post

The Complex Relationship Between An Insurer And An Insured

May 2, 2022 The relationship between an insurer and an insured is difficult to describe. In part, it is contractual in nature, because the insurance agreement between the insurer and the insured is a written contract. However, it is not purely contractual, which often results in somewhat unexpected outcomes in what seem to be normal... View Post

Changes to UIM Law in Idaho

February 23, 2022 There have been attacks on UIM policies for years, with plaintiffs trying to obtain judicial rulings to increase payments under such policies. In 2019, the Idaho Supreme Court discussed UIM policies, and found that there were two types of coverage: “excess” and “difference in limits,” sometimes called “offset” coverage. Wood v. Farmers... View Post

Dog Bite Cases Part 2: The Home-Rule Doctrine

January 20, 2022 CITY AND COUNTY CODES AND DOG BITES Cities and counties have interjected themselves into the mix in dog bite cases. It seems that, with the exception of Idaho Code § 25-2810(11), most regulations and rules dealing with dogs are dealt with at the municipal or county level. For example, Ada County Code... View Post

Dog Bite Cases Part 1: Claims in Idaho

January 4, 2022 “[I]n Idaho, all dogs, regardless of breed or size, are presumed to be harmless domestic animals.” Bright v. Maznik. While dogs themselves are presumed to be harmless, the law in a dog bite case is anything but. One dog bite can lead to multiple alternative causes of action, including negligence, negligence per... View Post

IDAHO RULE OF EVIDENCE 407: TO FIX OR NOT TO FIX

July 30, 2021 Idaho follows the general rule that evidence of post-accident repairs or alterations, or “subsequent remedial measures,” to show antecedent negligence is inadmissible at trial.1 Under Idaho R. Evid. 407, the evidence is also inadmissible to show a defect in a product or design or a need for a warning or instruction. People... View Post

NEGLIGENCE DEFENSES: SUDDEN EMERGENCY DOCTRINE

July 28, 2021 Like the “unavoidable accident” defense, the “sudden emergency” doctrine has roots dating back to the early 20th century.1 The doctrine recognizes that, when a person is placed in a position of apparent peril or danger without time to consider the circumstances, and in an effort to avoid such danger steps in the... View Post