Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-209 (2026)

Exclusiveness of liability of employer.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Exclusiveness of liability of employer.

(1) Subject to the provisions of section 72-223, Idaho Code, the liability of the employer under this law shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer to the employee, his spouse, dependents, heirs, legal representatives or assigns.

(2) The liability of an employer to another person who may be liable for or who has paid damages on account of an injury or occupational disease or death arising out of and in the course of employment of an employee of the employer and caused by the breach of any duty or obligation owed by the employer to such other person shall be limited to the amount of compensation for which the employer is liable under this law on account of such injury, disease, or death, unless such other person and the employer agree to share liability in a different manner.

(3) The exemption from liability given an employer by this section shall also extend to the employer’s surety and to all officers, agents, servants and employees of the employer or surety, provided that such exemptions from liability shall not apply in any case where the injury or death is proximately caused by the willful or unprovoked physical aggression of the employer, its officers, agents, servants or employees, which physical aggression must include clear and convincing evidence the employer, its officers, agents, servants, or employees either specifically intended to harm the employee or engaged in conduct knowing that injury or death to the employee was substantially likely to occur. The loss of such exemption applies only to the aggressor and shall not be imputable to the employer unless provoked or authorized by the employer or the employer was a party thereto.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 67 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Patricia Marek v. Hecla, Ltd., 384 P.3d 975 (Idaho 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patricia Marek v. Hecla, Ltd., 384 P.3d 975 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 82× “Whether the district court erred in holding that various respondents were immune from suit under Idaho Code section 72-209. Mareks argue that the district court erred in ruling that respondents Baker, Jordan, Bayer, Hogamier, Moore, and Stepro were also immune from liability.”

Hickman v. Boomers, LLC, 554 P.3d 99 (Idaho 2024). · cites it 70× “Idaho Code section 72-209 extends the protection of the exclusive remedy rule to statutory co-employees.”

Wilder v. Redd, 721 P.2d 1240 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 96× “After Wilder filed a negligence action against Redd, Redd filed a motion for summary judgment in the district court.”

DeMoss v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 795 P.2d 875 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 56× “The district court entered a memorandum opinion granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the grounds that the tort claims were (1) barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of I.C. § 72-209; (2) barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) that the claims under…”

Fulfer v. Sorrento Lactalis, Inc., 520 P.3d 708 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 26× “Idaho Code section 72-209(1) also explains that recourse under Idaho’s Workers’ Compensation laws is the exclusive remedy: “[s]ubject to the provisions of section 72-223, Idaho Code, the liability of the employer under this law shall be exclusive and in place of all other…”

Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC, 535 P.3d 1098 (Idaho 2023). · cites it 41× “23 Moreover, Amalgamated would not need to avail itself of the category one or two statutory immunities contained in section 72-223(1). As Smith’s employer, it paid his worker’s compensation benefits and is therefore immune pursuant to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act.”

Dominguez v. Evergreen Resources, Inc., 121 P.3d 938 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 19× “I.C. § 72-209(1). This principle “is referred to as the exclusive remedy rule.”

Blake v. Starr, 203 P.3d 1246 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 27× “” Idaho Code § 72-209 (3). In White v. Ponozzo, 77 Idaho 276 , 291 P.”

Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 76 P.3d 951 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 72-209(1) [2] ; I.C. § 72-211. [3] The exclusive nature of the worker's compensation remedy is referred to as the exclusive remedy rule.”

Ronnel e. Barrett v. Hecla Mining Co, 384 P.3d 969 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 27× “” I.C. § 72-209(1). Thus, we have stated: “Generally, the Idaho worker’s compensation law provides the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment.”

Pocatello Indus. Park Co. v. Steel West, Inc., 621 P.2d 399 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 10× “IV Steel West asks us to interpret the meaning of I.C. § 72-209(2), which reads as follows: “72-209.”

Kearney v. Denker, 760 P.2d 1171 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 18× “No proceeding before the Industrial Commission for worker's compensation may be maintained unless the claim has been filed in a timely fashion. I.C. § 72-701. Only if the employee is entitled to worker's compensation is the employee excluded from "all other rights and remedies .”

Show all 67 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 72-209(1) — 33 cases

Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 76 P.3d 951 (Idaho 2003). “I.C. § 72-209(1) [2] ; I.C. § 72-211. [3] The exclusive nature of the worker's compensation remedy is referred to as the exclusive remedy rule.”

Patricia Marek v. Hecla, Ltd., 384 P.3d 975 (Idaho 2016). “Whether the district court erred in holding that various respondents were immune from suit under Idaho Code section 72-209. Mareks argue that the district court erred in ruling that respondents Baker, Jordan, Bayer, Hogamier, Moore, and Stepro were also immune from liability.”

Venters v. Sorrento Delaware, Inc., 108 P.3d 392 (Idaho 2005).

Dominguez v. Evergreen Resources, Inc., 121 P.3d 938 (Idaho 2005). “I.C. § 72-209(1). This principle “is referred to as the exclusive remedy rule.”

Runcorn v. Shearer Lumber Prods., Inc., 690 P.2d 324 (Idaho 1984).

— Idaho Code § 72-209(2) — 7 cases

Pocatello Indus. Park Co. v. Steel West, Inc., 621 P.2d 399 (Idaho 1980). “IV Steel West asks us to interpret the meaning of I.C. § 72-209(2), which reads as follows: “72-209.”

Runcorn v. Shearer Lumber Prods., Inc., 690 P.2d 324 (Idaho 1984).

Dominguez v. Evergreen Resources, Inc., 121 P.3d 938 (Idaho 2005). “I.C. § 72-209(1). This principle “is referred to as the exclusive remedy rule.”

Barnett v. Eagle Helicopters, Inc., 848 P.2d 419 (Idaho 1993).

Seubert Excavators, Inc. v. Anderson Logging Co., 889 P.2d 82 (Idaho 1995).

— Idaho Code § 72-209(3) — 32 cases

Hickman v. Boomers, LLC, 554 P.3d 99 (Idaho 2024). “Idaho Code section 72-209 extends the protection of the exclusive remedy rule to statutory co-employees.”

Fulfer v. Sorrento Lactalis, Inc., 520 P.3d 708 (Idaho 2022). “Idaho Code section 72-209(1) also explains that recourse under Idaho’s Workers’ Compensation laws is the exclusive remedy: “[s]ubject to the provisions of section 72-223, Idaho Code, the liability of the employer under this law shall be exclusive and in place of all other…”

Smith v. Excel Fabrication, LLC, 535 P.3d 1098 (Idaho 2023). “23 Moreover, Amalgamated would not need to avail itself of the category one or two statutory immunities contained in section 72-223(1). As Smith’s employer, it paid his worker’s compensation benefits and is therefore immune pursuant to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act.”

DeMoss v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 795 P.2d 875 (Idaho 1990). “The district court entered a memorandum opinion granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the grounds that the tort claims were (1) barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of I.C. § 72-209; (2) barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) that the claims under…”

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.