reasonable expectations doctrine (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

reasonable expectations doctrine in Idaho

11 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Corgatelli v. Globe Life & Accident Insurance Co.green
idaho · 1975 · cited in 7 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1978–2017
2 sentences

1987Id. at 620 , 533 P.2d at 743 ("Today we adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations and hold that an ambiguity in the policy is not a prerequisite for the invocation of the doctrine."); Williams v. Havens, 92 Idaho 439, 446 , 444 P.2d 132, 139 (1968); Contracts, supra, § 9-44.

1987Id. at 620 , 533 P.2d at 743 ("Today we adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations and hold that an ambiguity in the policy is not a prerequisite for the invocation of the doctrine."); Williams v. Havens, 92 Idaho 439, 446 , 444 P.2d 132, 139 (1968); Contracts, supra, § 9-44.

17
McCann v. McCanngreen
idaho · 2012 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
2 sentences

2026See, e.g., McCann v. McCann, 152 Idaho 809, 819 , 275 P.3d 824, 834 (2012) (construing former version of the judicial dissolution statute applicable to Idaho general business corporations, I.C. § 30-1-1430 (repealed 2015), and stating that oppressive conduct in the corporate context generally “includes actions that defeat the reasonable expectations held by minority shareholders” (citation omitted)); Hirchak v. Hirchak, 331 A.3d 1051 , 1061 (Vt. 2024); Noel v. Pathology Med.

2026See, e.g., McCann v. McCann, 152 Idaho 809, 819 , 275 P.3d 824, 834 (2012) (construing former version of the judicial dissolution statute applicable to Idaho general business corporations, I.C. § 30-1-1430 (repealed 2015), and stating that oppressive conduct in the corporate context generally “includes actions that defeat the reasonable expectations held by minority shareholders” (citation omitted)); Hirchak v. Hirchak, 331 A.3d 1051 , 1061 (Vt. 2024); Noel v. Pathology Med.

11
Devine v. Great Divide Insurance Companygreen
alaska · 2015 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017The Alaska Supreme Court has explained: Interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law that we review de novo, looking “to the language of the disputed policy provision, other provisions of the policy, and relevant extrinsic evidence.” “[B]ecause of inequities in bargaining power, we construe coverage broadly and exclusions narrowly, in favor of insureds.” Insurance contracts are construed using the reasonable expectations doctrine, under which the “objectively reasonable expectations” of an insurance applicant about the terms of the insurance contract will be honored “even thoug

2017The Alaska Supreme Court has explained: Interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law that we review de novo, looking “to the language of the disputed policy provision, other provisions of the policy, and relevant extrinsic evidence.” “[B]ecause of inequities in bargaining power, we construe coverage broadly and exclusions narrowly, in favor of insureds.” Insurance contracts are construed using the reasonable expectations doctrine, under which the “objectively reasonable expectations” of an insurance applicant about the terms of the insurance contract will be honored “even thoug

11
Williams v. Havensgreen
idaho · 1968 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Id. at 620 , 533 P.2d at 743 ("Today we adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations and hold that an ambiguity in the policy is not a prerequisite for the invocation of the doctrine."); Williams v. Havens, 92 Idaho 439, 446 , 444 P.2d 132, 139 (1968); Contracts, supra, § 9-44.

1987Id. at 620 , 533 P.2d at 743 ("Today we adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations and hold that an ambiguity in the policy is not a prerequisite for the invocation of the doctrine."); Williams v. Havens, 92 Idaho 439, 446 , 444 P.2d 132, 139 (1968); Contracts, supra, § 9-44.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. green
cal · 1966
2 sentences

1988Corgatelli urges, and we agree, that the so-called "doctrine of reasonable expectations" (alias the doctrine of adhesion contracts) should be adopted in Idaho. [footnote omitted] That doctrine was articulated in the case of Gray v. Zurich Insurance Company, 65 Cal.2d 263 , 54 Cal. Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 (1966).

1988Corgatelli urges, and we agree, that the so-called "doctrine of reasonable expectations" (alias the doctrine of adhesion contracts) should be adopted in Idaho. [footnote omitted] That doctrine was articulated in the case of Gray v. Zurich Insurance Company, 65 Cal.2d 263 , 54 Cal. Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 (1966).

21975–1988
Hefner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange green
calctapp · 1989
2 sentences

2003As the court stated, “A further cardinal rule [for interpreting insurance policies] is: ‘The provisions of the policy as a whole as well as the exceptions to the liability of the insurer must be construed so as to give the insured the protection which he reasonably had a right to *450 expect.’ ” 211 Cal.App.3d at 1533 , 260 Cal.Rptr. at 225 .

2003As the court stated, “A further cardinal rule [for interpreting insurance policies] is: ‘The provisions of the policy as a whole as well as the exceptions to the liability of the insurer must be construed so as to give the insured the protection which he reasonably had a right to *450 expect.’ ” 211 Cal.App.3d at 1533 , 260 Cal.Rptr. at 225 .

12003–2003
Casey v. Highlands Insurance green
idaho · 1979
2 sentences

1983Co., 100 Idaho 505 , 600 P.2d 1387 (1979), rejected the insurance doctrine of reasonable expectations, the principle of construction adopted by the court in Erikson is no longer valid.

1983Co., 100 Idaho 505 , 600 P.2d 1387 (1979), rejected the insurance doctrine of reasonable expectations, the principle of construction adopted by the court in Erikson is no longer valid.

11983–1983

Where else courts name it

MN 37 (1985–2015) KY 31 (1987–2026) WV 25 (1987–2026) AZ 25 (1986–2020) NJ 19 (1986–2019) IL 18 (1988–2026) IA 18 (1975–2022) OK 14 (1996–2022) MT 12 (1993–2018) ID 11 (1975–2026) CA 10 (1983–2026) MA 10 (1984–2012) PA 9 (1986–2024) MI 9 (1994–2015) NM 7 (1977–2013) CO 7 (1996–2025) UT 7 (1992–2015) WA 6 (1994–2019) SC 6 (2001–2014) DE 6 (2015–2026) MO 6 (1987–2024) AL 6 (1993–2009) CT 5 (1987–2019) OH 5 (1986–2020) KS 4 (2002–2019) FL 4 (1996–2025) MD 3 (2015–2023) ND 3 (1977–2000) DC 3 (2001–2017) AK 2 (1996–2025) TX 2 (2013–2014) NC 2 (1996–2014) LA 2 (1995–2020) NH 2 (1978–1980)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check