Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 41-293 (2026)
Insurance fraud.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Insurance fraud.
Insurance fraud includes:
(1) (a) Any person who, with the intent to defraud or deceive an insurer for the purpose of obtaining any money or benefit, presents or causes to be presented to any insurer, producer, practitioner or other person, any statement as part of, or in support of, a claim for payment or other benefit, knowing that such statement contains false, incomplete, or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim; or
(b) Any person who, with intent to defraud or deceive an insurer assists, abets, solicits, or conspires with another to prepare or make any statement that is intended to be presented to any insurer, producer, practitioner or other person, in connection with, or in support of, any claim for payment or other benefit, knowing that such statement contains false, incomplete, or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim;
(c) Any person who, with intent to defraud or deceive, presents or causes to be presented to or by an insurer, a producer, practitioner or other person, a false or altered statement material to an insurance transaction;
(d) Any insurance producer or other person who, with intent to defraud or deceive, willfully takes premium money knowing that insurance coverage will not be effected;
(e) Any practitioner or other person who willfully submits a false or altered statement, with the intent of deceiving an insurer or other person in connection with an insurance transaction or claim;
(f) Anyone willfully making a false statement or material misrepresentation to an insurer, employer, practitioner or other person, with the intent to defraud or deceive an insurer or other person, to obtain or extend worker’s compensation benefits;
(g) Anyone who offers or accepts a direct or indirect inducement to file or solicits another person to file a false statement, with intent to defraud or deceive an insurer;
(h) Any person who, with intent to defraud or deceive, transacts insurance of any kind or character, or transmits for a person other than himself an application for a policy of insurance, without proper licensing or after such license has been suspended or revoked;
(i) Any practitioner or any other person who, with intent to defraud or deceive, employs, uses or acts as a runner for the purpose of submitting a claim containing false, incomplete, or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim;
(j) Any employer or other person who, with intent to defraud or deceive, presents or causes to be presented to an insurer, producer or any other person or governmental agency any statement containing the number of employees, amount of payroll, job description or job title or any other statement material to worker’s compensation insurance which contains false, misleading or incomplete information; or
(k) Any person who, with intent to defraud or deceive, obstructs the director in the conduct of any authorized examination.
(2) A fact, statement or representation is "material" if it includes any of the following:
(a) Any fact which, if communicated to the producer, insurer, adjuster or representative thereof, would induce him to either decline insurance altogether or not accept it unless a higher premium is paid by the insured;
(b) Any fact relating to a claim for insurance benefits which, if disclosed, would be a fair reason for rejecting a claim for insurance benefits;
(c) Any fact, the knowledge or ignorance of which would naturally influence the insurer in making or refusing the contract, in estimating the degree or character of the risk, or in fixing the rate of premium;
(d) Any fact, the knowledge or ignorance of which would naturally influence the insurer in accepting or rejecting a claim for insurance benefits or compensation, or in determining the amount of compensation or insurance benefits to be paid to the insured; or
(e) Any fact that necessarily has some bearing on the subject matter of the insurance coverage or claim for benefits under an insurance contract.
(3) Any offense committed by use of a telephone, any means of electronic communication or mail as provided by this chapter may be deemed to have been committed at the place from which the telephone call or electronic communication was made, or mail was sent, or the offense may be deemed to have been committed at the place at which the telephone call, electronic communication or mail was received.
(4) Any violator of this section is guilty of a felony and shall be subject to a term of imprisonment not to exceed fifteen (15) years, or a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), or both and shall be ordered to make restitution to the insurer or any other person for any financial loss sustained as a result of a violation of this section. Each instance of violation may be considered a separate offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: State v. Hoyle, 99 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2004).
State v. Hoyle, 99 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2004). “Insurance Fraud Evidence Hoyle was also charged with insurance fraud pursuant to I.C. § 41-293(1)(c) in Predicate Acts 108, 115 and 118 for the submission of allegedly materially false applications for insurance, upon which the jury could not agree.”
State v. Summer, 76 P.3d 963 (Idaho 2003). “THE ISSUES CONCERNING INSURANCE FRAUD ARE MOOT Summer maintains that the Court should consider whether an attorney engaged in settlement negotiations can be charged with insurance fraud under I.C. § 41-293 (1994), which states that persons are guilty of insurance fraud if by…”
State v. Norton, 254 P.3d 77 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). “§§ 18-802 and 18-1701, and insurance fraud, I.C. § 41-293(l)(a). We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2009, Norton purchased a house in Pierce, Idaho, for $85,000.”
State v. MacK, 974 P.2d 1109 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). “NOTES [1] Subsequently redesignated as Idaho Code § 41-293 by 1994 Idaho Sess. Laws ch.”
Slack v. Anderson, 89 P.3d 878 (Idaho 2004). “Idaho Code § 41-293 imposes criminal penalties upon one who makes such a claim with the intentional inclusion of false, incomplete or misleading information.”
State v. Barham, 464 P.3d 314 (Idaho Ct. App. 2020). “I.C. § 41-293(1)(c). After a jury found Barham guilty of the offense, the State sought a restitution order under I.”
State v. Maynard, 73 P.3d 731 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003). “Idaho Code § 41-293 (1)(f) defines insurance fraud, in relevant part, as “[ajnyone willfully making a false statement or material misrepresentation, with the intent of deceiving an insurer, to obtain or extend worker’s compensation benefits.”
State v. Joseph Anthony Mauro (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “The State charged Mauro with insurance fraud, Idaho Code §§ 41-293 , 18-204, and obstructing an officer, I.”
State v. Washburn (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Washburn was charged with insurance fraud, in violation of Idaho Code § 41-293 (1)(c), for filing an insurance claim with an incorrect date of loss.”
State v. Robert Conrad MacNeilage (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). “The State then charged MacNeilage with four counts of insurance fraud, Idaho Code § 41-293 (1)(c). During trial, the jury heard evidence that MacNeilage had purchased the BMW with the intention of repairing it for a quick sale.”
State v. Barham (Idaho Ct. App. 2021). “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Barham was charged with felony insurance fraud under Idaho Code § 41-293 . The charges arose after Barham’s insurance company reported to the State that Barham had made a claim for an accident which occurred prior to her purchase of an…”
— Idaho Code § 41-293(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Hoyle, 99 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2004). “Insurance Fraud Evidence Hoyle was also charged with insurance fraud pursuant to I.C. § 41-293(1)(c) in Predicate Acts 108, 115 and 118 for the submission of allegedly materially false applications for insurance, upon which the jury could not agree.”
State v. Barham, 464 P.3d 314 (Idaho Ct. App. 2020). “I.C. § 41-293(1)(c). After a jury found Barham guilty of the offense, the State sought a restitution order under I.”
— Idaho Code § 41-293(3) — 1 case
State v. Washburn (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Washburn was charged with insurance fraud, in violation of Idaho Code § 41-293 (1)(c), for filing an insurance claim with an incorrect date of loss.”
— Idaho Code § 41-293(4) — 2 cases
State v. Barham, 464 P.3d 314 (Idaho Ct. App. 2020). “I.C. § 41-293(1)(c). After a jury found Barham guilty of the offense, the State sought a restitution order under I.”
State v. Washburn (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Washburn was charged with insurance fraud, in violation of Idaho Code § 41-293 (1)(c), for filing an insurance claim with an incorrect date of loss.”
— Idaho Code § 41-293(b) — 1 case
State v. Joseph Anthony Mauro (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “The State charged Mauro with insurance fraud, Idaho Code §§ 41-293 , 18-204, and obstructing an officer, I.”
— Idaho Code § 41-293(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Norton, 254 P.3d 77 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). “§§ 18-802 and 18-1701, and insurance fraud, I.C. § 41-293(l)(a). We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2009, Norton purchased a house in Pierce, Idaho, for $85,000.”
— Idaho Code § 41-293(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Hoyle, 99 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2004). “Insurance Fraud Evidence Hoyle was also charged with insurance fraud pursuant to I.C. § 41-293(1)(c) in Predicate Acts 108, 115 and 118 for the submission of allegedly materially false applications for insurance, upon which the jury could not agree.”
— Idaho Code § 41-293(l)(f) — 1 case
State v. Maynard, 73 P.3d 731 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003). “Idaho Code § 41-293 (1)(f) defines insurance fraud, in relevant part, as “[ajnyone willfully making a false statement or material misrepresentation, with the intent of deceiving an insurer, to obtain or extend worker’s compensation benefits.”
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.