Prohibiting double recoveries from collateral sources.
In any action for personal injury or property damage, a judgment may be entered for the claimant only for damages which exceed amounts received by the claimant from collateral sources as compensation for the personal injury or property damage, whether from private, group or governmental sources, and whether contributory or noncontributory. For the purposes of this section, collateral sources shall not include benefits paid under federal programs which by law must seek subrogation, death benefits paid under life insurance contracts, benefits paid by a service corporation organized under chapter 34, title 41, Idaho Code, and benefits paid which are recoverable under subrogation rights created under Idaho law or by contract. Evidence of payment by collateral sources is admissible to the court after the finder of fact has rendered an award. Such award shall be reduced by the court to the extent the award includes compensation for damages which have been compensated independently from collateral sources.
Notes of Decisions
Carrillo v. Boise Tire Co., Inc., 274 P.3d 1256 (Idaho 2012).
· cites it 34× “Idaho Code § 6-1606 mandates that a tortfeasor is liable only for those damages that remain after most forms of collateral source payments are taken into account.”
Dyet v. McKinley, 81 P.3d 1236 (Idaho 2003).
· cites it 26× “Idaho Code § 6-1606 , entitled “Prohibiting double recoveries from collateral sources” states: *529 [I]n any action for personal injury or property damage, a judgment may be entered for the claimant only for damages which exceed amounts received by the claimant from collateral…”
Eldridge v. West, 458 P.3d 172 (Idaho 2020).
· cites it 10× “I.C. § 6-1606. West and Summit filed a motion in limine to restrict the jury’s consideration to only the amount of damages the Eldridges incurred after the Medicare write-offs had been applied, rather than the amount actually invoiced by the care providers.”
Slack v. Kelleher, 104 P.3d 958 (Idaho 2004).
· cites it 8× “On March 14, 2003, Kelleher filed a motion to determine collateral source payments under Idaho Code § 6-1606 . One of the issues raised by the motion was that the judgment should be reduced by the Medicare "write-off" (the reduction in charges required by Medicare regulations…”
Noel v. City of Rigby, 462 P.3d 103 (Idaho 2020).
· cites it 14× “As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether Medicaid write-offs are “collateral sources” so as to trigger the application of Idaho Code section 6-1606.”
Walker v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 948 P.2d 1123 (Idaho 1997).
· cites it 8× “The jury awarded Walker $315,333 for seed loss caused by ASSERT, but the trial court applied I.C. § 6-1606 to reduce the jury’s award by the same amount because of the crop insurance payment.”
Horner v. Sani-Top, Inc., 141 P.3d 1099 (Idaho 2006).
· cites it 6× “Next, Sani-Top argues that under I.C. § 6-1606 the judgment against Sani-Top for economic damages should be reduced by the amount of out-of-pocket expenses Home Depot paid, apart from the actual written Settlement Agreement, for Janessa’s medical and funeral expenses.”
McCandless v. Pease, 465 P.3d 1104 (Idaho 2020).
· cites it 6× “See I.C. § 6-1606. Idaho Code section 6-1606 4 It is worth noting that Appellants did not allege any impropriety by counsel during voir dire or assert a Batson challenge as to Pease’s peremptory strikes.”
Van Brunt v. Stoddard, 39 P.3d 621 (Idaho 2001).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 6-1606. It is undisputed that Van Brunt worked for the United States Postal Service, which provided Stoddard with a notice of subrogation to recover the medical bills paid on behalf of Van Brunt.”
Mulford v. Union Pac. R.R., 321 P.3d 684 (Idaho 2014).
· cites it 6× “Idaho Code § 6-1606 provides: In any action for personal injury or property damage, a judgment may be entered for the claimant only for damages which exceed amounts received by the claimant from collateral sources as compensation for the personal injury or property damage.”
Hines v. Hines, 934 P.2d 20 (Idaho 1997).
· cites it 2× “Contrary to William’s argument, the collateral source rule found in I.C. § 6-1606 is inapplicable to this case.”
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.