Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 41-1811 (2026)
Representations in applications.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Representations in applications.
All statements and descriptions in any application for an insurance policy or annuity contract, or in negotiations therefor, by or in behalf of the insured or annuitant, shall be deemed to be representations and not warranties. Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts, and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy or contract unless either:
(a) Fraudulent; or
(b) Material either to the acceptance of the risk, or to the hazard assumed by the insurer; or
(c) The insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy or contract, or would not have issued it at the same premium rate, or would not have issued a policy or contract in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required either by the application for the policy or contract or otherwise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Robinson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 45 P.3d 829 (Idaho 2002).
Robinson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 45 P.3d 829 (Idaho 2002). “Idaho Code § 41-1811 was adopted in 1961.”
Wardle v. Int'l Health & Life Ins., 551 P.2d 623 (Idaho 1976). “The trial court, in its conclusions of law, held that I.C. § 41-1811 precluded the Wardles from recovery because of their misrepresentation, omission, and concealment of material facts.”
Maxwell v. Cumberland Life Ins., 748 P.2d 392 (Idaho 1987). “II Our resolution of the above-delineated issues requires that we address Cumberland’s final argument. Cumberland contends that, even assuming the incontestability clause was in effect, the Maxwells are prevented from recovery by I.”
Indus. Indem. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Companies, 454 P.2d 956 (Idaho 1969). “The appellant maintains that the 1964 Corvette was added as an endorsement on the corporation’s policy while appellant was under the erroneous impression, created by Stanley Zweigart, that the vehicle was owned by the corporation, and that had the true facts been known appellant…”
Matthews v. New York Life Ins. Co., 443 P.2d 456 (Idaho 1968). “The court thus determined that the only relevant issue before it was whether appellant insurance company should be bound by its agent Thueson’s knowledge and actions.”
Powell v. Time Ins., 382 S.E.2d 342 (W. Va. 1989). “36, § 3609 (1981), and Idaho Code § 41-1811 (1977 ed.), see Industrial Indemnity Co.”
Hardy v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 763 P.2d 761 (Utah 1988). “§ 23-79-107 (1987); Idaho Code § 41-1811 (1977); Me.Rev.Stat.”
Berger v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 723 P.2d 388 (Utah 1986). “36, § 3609 (1981), and Idaho Code § 41-1811 (1977 ed.), see Industrial Indemnity Co.”
Derbidge v. Mut. Prot. Ins. Co., 963 P.2d 788 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). “, Idaho Code § 41-1811 (1991); 215 Ill. Comp.”
Dean v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 536 P.2d 1122 (Idaho 1975). “*775 Nationwide argues that I.C. § 41-1811 affords it ground for avoiding the policy.”
Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cook, 435 P.2d 364 (Idaho 1967). “§41-1811. An insurer has the right to choose the persons with whom he will contract, and he should not, retroactively be made to accept a relationship for which he did not knowingly bargain.”
Williams v. USAA Life Ins. Co. (D. Idaho 2024). “30, 2017) (“Defendant had the right to rescind the Policy within Idaho Code § 41 -1905’s two-year contestability period on the basis of material misrepresentations under Idaho Code § 41-1811 and § 41-1832.”). In other words, rescinding a life insurance policy within two years of…”
— Idaho Code § 41-1811(a) — 1 case
Indus. Indem. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Companies, 454 P.2d 956 (Idaho 1969). “The appellant maintains that the 1964 Corvette was added as an endorsement on the corporation’s policy while appellant was under the erroneous impression, created by Stanley Zweigart, that the vehicle was owned by the corporation, and that had the true facts been known appellant…”
— Idaho Code § 41-1811(b) — 1 case
Wardle v. Int'l Health & Life Ins., 551 P.2d 623 (Idaho 1976). “The trial court, in its conclusions of law, held that I.C. § 41-1811 precluded the Wardles from recovery because of their misrepresentation, omission, and concealment of material facts.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.