Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-310 (2026)

Misrepresentation not to affect employee’s rights. 

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

Misrepresentation not to affect employee’s rights. 

(1) No statement in an application for such a policy, contract or bond shall void the policy, contract or bond as between the surety and employer unless such statement shall be false and would materially have affected the acceptance of the risk if known by the surety. In no case shall the holding of the policy, contract or bond void between the surety and employer affect the surety’s obligation to the employer’s employees or their dependents to pay compensation and to discharge other obligations under this law. In such case, the surety shall have a right of action against the employer for any amounts for which the surety is liable under such policy, contract or bond.

(2)  As between any such employee or his dependents and the surety no question as to breach of warranty or misrepresentation by the insured shall be raised by the surety in any proceeding or any appeal therefrom.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1949–2014 · leading case: Hix v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 397 P.2d 237 (Idaho 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hix v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 397 P.2d 237 (Idaho 1964). · cites it 15× “Claimant by his specifications of error raises the issue whether the Board can adopt “an arbitrary plan or basis for the computation of benefits provided for injured workmen”; and urges that the Board should have awarded him “a percentage of total permanent disability,” citing…”
Cox v. Intermountain Lumber Co., 439 P.2d 931 (Idaho 1968). · cites it 9× “00 per week as the board required them to pay under I.C. § 72-310. On the other hand the indemnity fund asserts that appellants are liable for the full 120 weeks and as it interprets I.”
Corgatelli v. Steel West, Inc., 335 P.3d 1150 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 2× “Notably, an earlier version of Idaho Code section 72-408, then-codified at Idaho Code section 72-310(a), allowed for a deduction for “partial disability” along with the waiting period deduction.”
Clevenger v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 377 P.2d 794 (Idaho 1963). · cites it 4× “The Board thereupon awarded Irvine compensation as for a total permanent disability, being for the period of 400 weeks from and after the date of the accident at the maximum rate, and for the remainder of his life at the minimum rate, I.C. §§ 72-310 and 72-311; and further…”
Griffin v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 457 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1969). · cites it 4× “Griffin to be incapable of performing his old job, but to be physically capable of handling a desk job or other type of light work, not involving lifting or strenuous physical exertion.”
McCall v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 208 P.2d 799 (Idaho 1949). · cites it 4× “Section 72-310, I.C., fixes the amount of compensation for total disability and so far as this case is concerned, there has been no material change in it or Sec.”
Anderson v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 291 P.2d 859 (Idaho 1955). · cites it 4× “for compensation for permanent partial disability caused by the accident, even though total permanent disability results therefrom due to the employee’s previous physical impairment, and, where total permanent disability results, the difference between compensation therefor and…”
Peterson's Est. v. Jr Simplot Co., Food Proc. Div., 358 P.2d 587 (Idaho 1961). · cites it 6× “” Clearly, such observation is descriptive of total disability which may be temporary in character, I.C. § 72-310, and partial temporary disability, I.”
Crawford v. Nielson, 307 P.2d 229 (Idaho 1957). · cites it 3× “Section 72-310, I.C., uses the phrase “where the injury causes total disability for work.”
Blackburn v. Olson, 207 P.2d 1160 (Idaho 1949). · cites it 2× “, which read in part, at the time in question, as follows: “In case of the following injuries the compensation shall be fifty-five per cent of the average weekly wages, but not more than the weekly compensation provided in section 72-310, in addition to all other compensation,…”
Lane v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw., 376 P.2d 198 (Idaho 1962). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 72-310(a) provides in part as follows: “Where the injury causes total disability for work, the employer during *118 such disability shall pay the injured employee weekly compensation * * * (Emphasis supplied.”
Wilson v. Gardner Associated, Inc., 426 P.2d 567 (Idaho 1967). “§§ 72-310(a), 72-312. See: 2 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law § 57.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 72-310(a) — 8 cases
Hix v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 397 P.2d 237 (Idaho 1964). “Claimant by his specifications of error raises the issue whether the Board can adopt “an arbitrary plan or basis for the computation of benefits provided for injured workmen”; and urges that the Board should have awarded him “a percentage of total permanent disability,” citing…”
Cox v. Intermountain Lumber Co., 439 P.2d 931 (Idaho 1968). “00 per week as the board required them to pay under I.C. § 72-310. On the other hand the indemnity fund asserts that appellants are liable for the full 120 weeks and as it interprets I.”
Corgatelli v. Steel West, Inc., 335 P.3d 1150 (Idaho 2014). “Notably, an earlier version of Idaho Code section 72-408, then-codified at Idaho Code section 72-310(a), allowed for a deduction for “partial disability” along with the waiting period deduction.”
Griffin v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 457 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1969). “Griffin to be incapable of performing his old job, but to be physically capable of handling a desk job or other type of light work, not involving lifting or strenuous physical exertion.”
Lane v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw., 376 P.2d 198 (Idaho 1962). “I.C. § 72-310(a) provides in part as follows: “Where the injury causes total disability for work, the employer during *118 such disability shall pay the injured employee weekly compensation * * * (Emphasis supplied.”
— Idaho Code § 72-310(b) — 1 case
Hix v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 397 P.2d 237 (Idaho 1964). “Claimant by his specifications of error raises the issue whether the Board can adopt “an arbitrary plan or basis for the computation of benefits provided for injured workmen”; and urges that the Board should have awarded him “a percentage of total permanent disability,” citing…”
— Idaho Code § 72-310(d) — 1 case
Nelson v. Bogus Basin Recreational Ass'n, 484 P.2d 290 (Idaho 1971).
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.