Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 41-2502 (2026)

Uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage for automobile insurance — exceptions. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage for automobile insurance — exceptions. 

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, no owner’s or operator’s policy of motor vehicle liability insurance that is subject to the requirements of section 49-1212(1) or (2), Idaho Code, shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in limits for bodily injury or death as set forth in section 49-117, Idaho Code, as amended from time to time, under provisions approved by the director of the department of insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured and underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom.

(2)  A named insured shall have the right to reject either or both uninsured motorist coverage or underinsured motorist coverage, which rejection must be in writing or in an electronic record as authorized by the uniform electronic transactions act, chapter 50, title 28, Idaho Code, and such rejection shall be effective as to all other insureds and named insureds; and after which such rejected coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal or replacement policy issued by the same insurer or an affiliate of that insurer.
(3)  Prior to the issuance of any new policy or the first renewal or replacement of any existing policy of motor vehicle liability insurance with an effective date on or after January 1, 2009, a named insured shall be provided a standard statement approved by the director of the department of insurance, explaining in summary form, both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, and the different forms of underinsured motorist coverage that might be available from insurers in Idaho.
(4)  The provisions of this section shall not apply to policies of motor vehicle liability insurance for coverage on all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, specialty off-highway vehicles or motorbikes as those terms are defined in section 67-7101, Idaho Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Hill v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 249 P.3d 812 (Idaho 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hill v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 249 P.3d 812 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 64× “The majority cites Idaho Code § 41-2502 as amended in 2008, but it is clear that the exhaustion clause does not expressly or implicitly violate any public policy declared by that statute.”
Eastman v. Farmers Ins., 423 P.3d 431 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 52× “The plain language of Idaho Code section 41-2502 makes it clear that UIM coverage is not required by the statute.”
Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co., 721 P.2d 198 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 50× “The Court of Appeals held that the physical contact requirement was contrary to public policy as enunciated by I.C. § 41-2502. Only thereafter did the Court of Appeals find it necessary to consider the coverage question at issue in the instant case, i.”
Hammon v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 707 P.2d 397 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 44× “The Court of Appeals held that the physical contact requirement in the uninsured motorist section of the Hammons' insurance policy was contrary to Idaho's uninsured motorist statute, I.C. § 41-2502, and reversed the summary judgment.”
Martinez v. Idaho Counties Reciprocal Mgmt. Prog., 999 P.2d 902 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 48× “The Exclusions to the Uninsured Motorist Coverage Are Illusory and Void as Against Public Policy Under I.C. § 41-2502. Martinez argues that the policy issued by ICRMP is ambiguous and as such, should be construed in favor of finding coverage.”
Kromrei v. AID Ins. Co.(Mut.), 716 P.2d 1321 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 24× “Because the majority refuses to decide the most critical issue here — whether Idaho law invalidates purported anti-stacking provisions in insurance policies — and also because the majority incorrectly interprets a most ambiguous statement regarding insurance coverage as…”
Blackburn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 697 P.2d 425 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 32× “I.C. § 41-2502 requires a motor vehicle liability insurance policy to provide protection from injury by uninsured vehicles in amounts not less than the minimum limits for bodily injury or death required by the Motor Vehicle Safety and Responsibility Act, I.”
Meckert v. Transamerica Ins., 701 P.2d 217 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 24× “Meckert argues that the "other owned vehicle" exclusion contravenes a public policy of protecting innocent victims of negligent and financially irresponsible motorists, as exemplified by I.C. §§ 41-2502, *220 49-1505(d). We disagree.”
Locey v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 764 P.2d 101 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 40× “Instead, the Loceys pursued their uninsured motorist coverage claim and they sought to "stack" all of their Farmers Insurance uninsured motorist coverages.”
Miller v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 702 P.2d 1356 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 16× “The district court also ruled on the applicability of I.C. § 41-2502, stating: There is nothing in public policy mandating the Court to stretch the meaning of I.”
Hammon v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 692 P.2d 1202 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 14× “Idaho Code § 41-2502 requires all insurance companies selling automobile liability policies to include uninsured motorist coverage, unless rejected by the insured.”
Sloviaczek v. Est. of Puckett, 565 P.2d 564 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 8× “The whole rationale underlying the requirement of uninsured motorist provisions by I.C. § 41-2502 is that liability assigned to an insolvent, uninsured tortfeasor is worthless and that some arbitrary method of providing compensation is necessary.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 41-2502(1) — 7 cases
Eastman v. Farmers Ins., 423 P.3d 431 (Idaho 2018). “The plain language of Idaho Code section 41-2502 makes it clear that UIM coverage is not required by the statute.”
Hill v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 249 P.3d 812 (Idaho 2011). “The majority cites Idaho Code § 41-2502 as amended in 2008, but it is clear that the exhaustion clause does not expressly or implicitly violate any public policy declared by that statute.”
De Smet Ins. Co. of South Dakota v. Pourier, 2011 S.D. 47 (S.D. 2011).
Gearhart v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 378 P.3d 454 (Idaho 2016).
Pena v. Viking Ins. Co. of Wisconsin (Idaho 2022).
— Idaho Code § 41-2502(2) — 5 cases
Hill v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 249 P.3d 812 (Idaho 2011). “The majority cites Idaho Code § 41-2502 as amended in 2008, but it is clear that the exhaustion clause does not expressly or implicitly violate any public policy declared by that statute.”
Eastman v. Farmers Ins., 423 P.3d 431 (Idaho 2018). “The plain language of Idaho Code section 41-2502 makes it clear that UIM coverage is not required by the statute.”
Foresee v. Metro. Grp. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 572 P.3d 754 (Idaho Ct. App. 2025).
Gilbert v. Progressive Nw. Ins. Co. (Idaho 2025).
Lanningham v. Farm Bureau (Idaho 2024).
— Idaho Code § 41-2502(3) — 1 case
Wood v. Farmers Ins. Co of Idaho (Idaho 2019).
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.