Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 41-1839 (2026)
Allowance of attorney’s fees in suits against or in arbitration with insurers.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Allowance of attorney’s fees in suits against or in arbitration with insurers.
(1) Any insurer issuing any policy, certificate or contract of insurance, surety, guaranty or indemnity of any kind or nature whatsoever that fails to pay a person entitled thereto within thirty (30) days after proof of loss has been furnished as provided in such policy, certificate or contract, or to pay to the person entitled thereto within sixty (60) days if the proof of loss pertains to uninsured motorist or underinsured motorist coverage benefits, the amount that person is justly due under such policy, certificate or contract shall in any action thereafter commenced against the insurer in any court in this state, or in any arbitration for recovery under the terms of the policy, certificate or contract, pay such further amount as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorney’s fees in such action or arbitration.
(2) In any such action or arbitration, if it is alleged that before the commencement thereof, a tender of the full amount justly due was made to the person entitled thereto, and such amount is thereupon deposited in the court, and if the allegation is found to be true, or if it is determined in such action or arbitration that no amount is justly due, then no such attorney’s fees may be recovered.
(3) This section shall not apply as to actions under the worker’s compensation law, title 72, Idaho Code. This section shall not apply to actions or arbitrations against surety insurers by creditors of or claimants against a principal and arising out of a surety or guaranty contract issued by the insurer as to such principal, unless such creditors or claimants shall have notified the surety of their claim, in writing, at least sixty (60) days prior to such action or arbitration against the surety. The surety shall be authorized to determine what portion or amount of such claim is justly due the creditor or claimant and payment or tender of the amount so determined by the surety shall not be deemed a volunteer payment and shall not prejudice any right of the surety to indemnification and/or subrogation so long as such determination and payment by the surety be made in good faith. Nor shall this section apply to actions or arbitrations against fidelity insurers by claimants against a principal and arising out of a fidelity contract or policy issued by the insurer as to such principal unless the liability of the principal has been acknowledged by him in writing or otherwise established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of statute to the contrary, this section and section 12-123, Idaho Code, shall provide the exclusive remedy for the award of statutory attorney’s fees in all actions or arbitrations between insureds and insurers involving disputes arising under policies of insurance. Provided, attorney’s fees may be awarded by the court when it finds, from the facts presented to it that a case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. Section 12-120, Idaho Code, shall not apply to any actions or arbitrations between insureds and insurers involving disputes arising under any policy of insurance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 183
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Parsons v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins., 152 P.3d 614 (Idaho 2007).
Parsons v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins., 152 P.3d 614 (Idaho 2007). “The insurer contends that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees in an amount consistent with the contingent fee agreement rather than in an amount based upon an hourly fee. We affirm the district court.”
Wolfe v. Farm Bureau Ins., 913 P.2d 1168 (Idaho 1996). “Wolfe contends that when an insured is required to enter into arbitration under his insurance contract, *1174 due to his insurance company's failure to pay what is justly due, then he is entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code § 41-1839 .”
The Est. of Benjamin Holland v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins., 279 P.3d 80 (Idaho 2012). “In fact, in Parsons we stated that “any argument regarding the requirements for obtaining an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 41-1839 (1) must be based upon the wording of the statute____ Arguments for additional requirements ■ not contained in the statutory language…”
Brinkman v. Aid Ins. Co., 766 P.2d 1227 (Idaho 1988). “The appeal further involves issues of the applicability of the collateral source doctrine and when and to what extent prejudgment interest may appropriately be awarded.”
Smith v. Great Basin Grain Co., 561 P.2d 1299 (Idaho 1977). “The plaintiffs also claimed attorney's fees from Millers pursuant to I.C. § 41-1839. Generally, Smith's and Linderman's amended complaints took the position that all of the grain was in "storage" with Great Basin and was converted by it.”
Parks v. Safeco Ins Co of Illinois, 376 P.3d 760 (Idaho 2016). “Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment against the Parks regarding their claim that Safeco’s conduct constituted bad faith. 3. Whether the district court erred in holding that the Parks were not entitled to amend their Complaint to assert a claim for…”
Weinstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 233 P.3d 1221 (Idaho 2010). “Did the district court err in awarding Sarah attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 41-1839 ? 7. Did the district court err in refusing to apply Idaho Code §§ 6-1604 (1) & (3) to this action? 8.”
Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 61 P.3d 601 (Idaho 2002). “On February 21, 2001, counsel for Martin filed a memorandum of costs for attorney fees in the district court, claiming an entitlement to fees pursuant to I.C. § 41-1839, in particular on account of State Farm’s offer and payment of substantially less than the sum awarded by the…”
Hayden Lake Fire Prot. Dist. v. Alcorn, 109 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2005). “Finally, the court rejected the SIF’s request for attorney fees on the basis that Idaho Code § 41-1839 (4) provided the sole remedy for cases arising out of the *312 context of an insurance contract.”
Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 735 P.2d 974 (Idaho 1987). “On appeal, State Farm contends that the district court erred in (1) permitting Hansens to "stack" their uninsured motorist coverage under their three State Farm policies; (2) holding the arbitration clause in the uninsured motorist provision unenforceable and void; and (3)…”
Emery v. United Pac. Ins., 815 P.2d 442 (Idaho 1991). “The district court granted Emery's motions and held that she was entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the accident until the date the award was satisfied, and pursuant to I.C. § 41-1839 awarded Emery attorney fees in the amount of $49,381.”
Trinity Universal Ins. v. Kirsling, 73 P.3d 102 (Idaho 2003). “Therefore, Marco argues that she is entitled to fees pursuant to I.C. §§ 41-1839 and 12-121. Trinity, however, contends that the issues presented in this matter are issues of first impression before this Court and this appeal was not brought, pursued or defended frivolously,…”
— Idaho Code § 41-1839(1) — 43 cases
Parks v. Safeco Ins Co of Illinois, 376 P.3d 760 (Idaho 2016). “Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment against the Parks regarding their claim that Safeco’s conduct constituted bad faith. 3. Whether the district court erred in holding that the Parks were not entitled to amend their Complaint to assert a claim for…”
Brinkman v. Aid Ins. Co., 766 P.2d 1227 (Idaho 1988). “The appeal further involves issues of the applicability of the collateral source doctrine and when and to what extent prejudgment interest may appropriately be awarded.”
Hill v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 249 P.3d 812 (Idaho 2011).
The Est. of Benjamin Holland v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins., 279 P.3d 80 (Idaho 2012). “In fact, in Parsons we stated that “any argument regarding the requirements for obtaining an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 41-1839 (1) must be based upon the wording of the statute____ Arguments for additional requirements ■ not contained in the statutory language…”
United Heritage v. Zech, 516 P.3d 1035 (Idaho 2022).
— Idaho Code § 41-1839(2) — 5 cases
Wolfe v. Farm Bureau Ins., 913 P.2d 1168 (Idaho 1996). “Wolfe contends that when an insured is required to enter into arbitration under his insurance contract, *1174 due to his insurance company's failure to pay what is justly due, then he is entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code § 41-1839 .”
The Est. of Benjamin Holland v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins., 279 P.3d 80 (Idaho 2012). “In fact, in Parsons we stated that “any argument regarding the requirements for obtaining an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 41-1839 (1) must be based upon the wording of the statute____ Arguments for additional requirements ■ not contained in the statutory language…”
Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 61 P.3d 601 (Idaho 2002). “On February 21, 2001, counsel for Martin filed a memorandum of costs for attorney fees in the district court, claiming an entitlement to fees pursuant to I.C. § 41-1839, in particular on account of State Farm’s offer and payment of substantially less than the sum awarded by the…”
Anderson v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 947 P.2d 1003 (Idaho 1997).
Stein-mcmurray Ins. Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 520 P.2d 865 (Idaho 1974).
— Idaho Code § 41-1839(3) — 4 cases
Smith v. Great Basin Grain Co., 561 P.2d 1299 (Idaho 1977). “The plaintiffs also claimed attorney's fees from Millers pursuant to I.C. § 41-1839. Generally, Smith's and Linderman's amended complaints took the position that all of the grain was in "storage" with Great Basin and was converted by it.”
Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 67 P.3d 90 (Idaho 2003).
Hestead v. Cna Supply, 272 P.3d 547 (Idaho 2012).
Sch. Dist. No. 91, Bonneville Cnty. v. Taysom, 495 P.2d 5 (Idaho 1972).
— Idaho Code § 41-1839(4) — 29 cases
Parks v. Safeco Ins Co of Illinois, 376 P.3d 760 (Idaho 2016). “Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment against the Parks regarding their claim that Safeco’s conduct constituted bad faith. 3. Whether the district court erred in holding that the Parks were not entitled to amend their Complaint to assert a claim for…”
Hayden Lake Fire Prot. Dist. v. Alcorn, 109 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2005). “Finally, the court rejected the SIF’s request for attorney fees on the basis that Idaho Code § 41-1839 (4) provided the sole remedy for cases arising out of the *312 context of an insurance contract.”
Mortensen v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 235 P.3d 387 (Idaho 2010).
J.R. Simplot Co. v. W. Heritage Ins., 977 P.2d 196 (Idaho 1999).
Trinity Universal Ins. v. Kirsling, 73 P.3d 102 (Idaho 2003). “Therefore, Marco argues that she is entitled to fees pursuant to I.C. §§ 41-1839 and 12-121. Trinity, however, contends that the issues presented in this matter are issues of first impression before this Court and this appeal was not brought, pursued or defended frivolously,…”
— Idaho Code § 41-1839(4)(2003) — 1 case
Hayden Lake Fire Prot. Dist. v. Alcorn, 109 P.3d 161 (Idaho 2005). “Finally, the court rejected the SIF’s request for attorney fees on the basis that Idaho Code § 41-1839 (4) provided the sole remedy for cases arising out of the *312 context of an insurance contract.”
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.