Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-212 (2026)

Exemptions from coverage.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Exemptions from coverage.

None of the provisions of this law shall apply to the following employments unless coverage thereof is elected as provided in section 72-213, Idaho Code:

(1) Household domestic service.

(2) Casual employment.

(3) Employment of outworkers.

(4) Employment of members of an employer’s family dwelling in his household if the employer is the owner of a sole proprietorship or a single member limited liability company that is taxed as a sole proprietorship.

(5) Employment of members of an employer’s family not dwelling in his household if the employer is the owner of a sole proprietorship, provided the family member has filed with the commission a written declaration of his election for exemption from coverage.

(6) Employment as the owner of a sole proprietorship; employment of a working member of a partnership or a limited liability company; employment of an officer of a corporation who at all times during the period involved owns not less than ten percent (10%) of all of the issued and outstanding voting stock of the corporation and, if the corporation has directors, is also a director thereof.

(7) Employment for which a rule of liability for injury, occupational disease, or death is provided by the laws of the United States.

(8) Employment as a pilot of an aircraft, while actually operating an aircraft for the purpose of applying fertilizers or pesticides to agricultural crops, shall be exempt from the provisions of the worker’s compensation law, provided that:

(a) The industrial commission has issued to the agent submitting the policy written approval of a policy of insurance that will provide benefits in an amount of not less than: twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) accidental death and dismemberment, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) medical expense payments, and five hundred dollars ($500) per month disability income for a minimum of forty-eight (48) months; and

(b) Once the policy has been approved by the industrial commission, proof of coverage for the specified pilot has been filed with the commission prior to the pilot actually operating an aircraft.

Provided however, the agent issuing the policy shall obtain approval of the policy of insurance, and proof of coverage for each pilot insured under the policy shall be filed with the commission, each calendar year. The exemption shall be effective on the date the commission receives proof of coverage for the specified pilot, but no earlier than the date written approval of the policy was issued by the commission.

(9) Associate real estate brokers and real estate salesmen. Service performed by an individual for a real estate broker as an associate real estate broker or as a real estate salesman, if all such service performed by such individual for such person is performed for remuneration solely by way of commission.

(10) Volunteer ski patrollers.

(11) Officials of athletic contests involving secondary schools, as defined in section 33-119, Idaho Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Reeder Flying Serv., 21 P.3d 890 (Idaho 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Reeder Flying Serv., 21 P.3d 890 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 20× “(9) Pilots of agricultural spraying or dusting planes. Employment as a pilot of an aircraft, used to apply fertilizers and pesticides to agricultural crops, when actually operating an aircraft, shall be exempt from the provisions of the worker’s compensation law, if: the…”

Tuma v. Kosterman, 682 P.2d 1275 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 24× “§ 72-102(13); and (3) respondent's employment was casual pursuant to I.C. § 72-212(2). Appellant appeals from the Industrial Commission's finding that he was not exempt from liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and thus was required to pay compensation to respondent.”

Iverson v. Gordon Farming Co., Inc., 650 P.2d 669 (Idaho 1982). · cites it 24× “This evidence relating to the claimant's length of employment is relevant in establishing whether Gordon Farming was exempt from coverage under I.C. § 72-212(2) dealing with casual employment.”

Goodson v. LW Hult Produce Co., 543 P.2d 167 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 19× “Idaho Code section 72-203 expresses the policy that the Workmen's Compensation Act "shall apply to all public employment and to all private employment not expressly *170 exempt by the provisions of section 72-212." The latter section specifically enunciates an exemption from the…”

Stoica v. Pocol, 39 P.3d 601 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 12× “CLAIMANT’S EMPLOYMENT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM WORKERS COMPENSATION COVERAGE Idaho Code § 72-212 sets forth exceptions from worker’s compensation coverage, including casual employment, section (2), and employment which is not carried out by the employer for pecuniary gain, section (6).”

Kuhn v. Box Canyon Livestock, Inc., 637 P.2d 1154 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 13× “The Industrial Commission found that respondent's hauling activity, within which appellant's injury occurred (i.e., while he *1156 was hauling the milk to Kraft) was excluded from workman's compensation coverage under the "agricultural pursuits" exemption, I.”

Lesperance v. Cooper, 663 P.2d 1094 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 12× “Any other determination would have required the Commission to read into Idaho Code § 72-212 (8) words and concepts not contained therein.”

Hoskins v. Circle a Constr., Inc., 63 P.3d 462 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 11× “I.C. § 72-212 states that: None of the provisions of tMs law shall apply to the following .”

Serrano v. Four Seasons Framing, 336 P.3d 242 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 6× “For example, the Legislative could have stated: “a person, including a minor lawfully or unlawfully employed,____” That the Legislature intended the modifying language to apply to all employments, is also suggested by the provisions of Idaho Code § 72-212 . That section exempts…”

Sellmer v. Ruen, 769 P.2d 577 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 16× “This is an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission holding that claimant-appellant Sellmer was injured while engaged in an agricultural pursuit, and hence not covered under the strictures of the workman's compensation statutes, I.C. § 72-212(8). We affirm. Claimant was…”

Riggs v. Est. of Standlee, 901 P.2d 1328 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 22× “This is an appeal from an Industrial Commission (Commission) ruling that the agricultural exemption to the worker’s compensation statutes, I.C. § 72-212(8), bars the appellant’s claim for death benefits arising from the accidental death of her husband, Robbin Riggs.”

Backsen v. Blauser, 520 P.2d 858 (Idaho 1974). · cites it 12× “§ 72-203 provides that the workmen’s compensation laws shall apply to all public employment and all private employment not expressly exempt by I.C. § 72-212. I.C. § 72-212(8) provides for an exemption for employment in agricultural pursuits.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 72-212(2) — 8 cases

Iverson v. Gordon Farming Co., Inc., 650 P.2d 669 (Idaho 1982). “This evidence relating to the claimant's length of employment is relevant in establishing whether Gordon Farming was exempt from coverage under I.C. § 72-212(2) dealing with casual employment.”

Tuma v. Kosterman, 682 P.2d 1275 (Idaho 1984). “§ 72-102(13); and (3) respondent's employment was casual pursuant to I.C. § 72-212(2). Appellant appeals from the Industrial Commission's finding that he was not exempt from liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and thus was required to pay compensation to respondent.”

Mortimer v. Riviera Apts., 840 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1992).

Anderson v. Gailey, 555 P.2d 144 (Idaho 1976).

Stoica v. Pocol, 39 P.3d 601 (Idaho 2001). “CLAIMANT’S EMPLOYMENT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM WORKERS COMPENSATION COVERAGE Idaho Code § 72-212 sets forth exceptions from worker’s compensation coverage, including casual employment, section (2), and employment which is not carried out by the employer for pecuniary gain, section (6).”

— Idaho Code § 72-212(5) — 2 cases

Burrow v. Caldwell Treasure Valley Rodeo, Inc., 931 P.2d 1193 (Idaho 1997).

Dewey v. Merrill, 858 P.2d 740 (Idaho 1993).

— Idaho Code § 72-212(6) — 4 cases

Indus. Comm'n v. Sky Down Skydiving, 462 P.3d 92 (Idaho 2020).

State ex rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Bible Missionary Church, Inc., 70 P.3d 685 (Idaho 2003).

Loughmiller v. Interstate Farmlines, Inc., 687 P.2d 569 (Idaho 1984).

— Idaho Code § 72-212(7) — 1 case

Hoskins v. Circle a Constr., Inc., 63 P.3d 462 (Idaho 2003). “I.C. § 72-212 states that: None of the provisions of tMs law shall apply to the following .”

— Idaho Code § 72-212(8) — 13 cases

Goodson v. LW Hult Produce Co., 543 P.2d 167 (Idaho 1975). “Idaho Code section 72-203 expresses the policy that the Workmen's Compensation Act "shall apply to all public employment and to all private employment not expressly *170 exempt by the provisions of section 72-212." The latter section specifically enunciates an exemption from the…”

Kuhn v. Box Canyon Livestock, Inc., 637 P.2d 1154 (Idaho 1981). “The Industrial Commission found that respondent's hauling activity, within which appellant's injury occurred (i.e., while he *1156 was hauling the milk to Kraft) was excluded from workman's compensation coverage under the "agricultural pursuits" exemption, I.”

Sellmer v. Ruen, 769 P.2d 577 (Idaho 1989). “This is an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission holding that claimant-appellant Sellmer was injured while engaged in an agricultural pursuit, and hence not covered under the strictures of the workman's compensation statutes, I.C. § 72-212(8). We affirm. Claimant was…”

Riggs v. Est. of Standlee, 901 P.2d 1328 (Idaho 1995). “This is an appeal from an Industrial Commission (Commission) ruling that the agricultural exemption to the worker’s compensation statutes, I.C. § 72-212(8), bars the appellant’s claim for death benefits arising from the accidental death of her husband, Robbin Riggs.”

— Idaho Code § 72-212(9) — 1 case

Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Reeder Flying Serv., 21 P.3d 890 (Idaho 2001). “(9) Pilots of agricultural spraying or dusting planes. Employment as a pilot of an aircraft, used to apply fertilizers and pesticides to agricultural crops, when actually operating an aircraft, shall be exempt from the provisions of the worker’s compensation law, if: the…”

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.