Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-311 (2026)

Notice of security — Cancellation of surety contract.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Notice of security — Cancellation of surety contract.

(1) The employer shall forthwith file with the commission in form prescribed by it, a notice of his security.

(2) No policy of insurance or guaranty contract or surety bond issued against liability arising under this act, where the policy, contract, or bond is intended to provide coverage of greater than one hundred eighty (180) days, shall be canceled or not renewed until at least sixty (60) days after notice of cancellation has been filed with the industrial commission, and also served on the other contracting party either personally or by certified mail to the last known address of the other contracting party. If cancellation is due to failure to pay premiums, material misrepresentations by the insured, substantial and unforeseen changes in the risk assumed, substantial breaches of contractual duties, conditions or warranties, or the policy is being canceled or not renewed at the request of the policyholder, then at least ten (10) days’ notice of cancellation is required and the notice shall be filed as required in this section. For purposes of this section, service by certified mail is complete either on acknowledgement of receipt or refusal of the notice by the contracting party or the fifteenth day after the date the postal authority first attempts to deliver the certified mail as evidenced by P.S. form 3849 or other similar document.

(3) A contracting party may, by its own representations or actions, be estopped by the commission from relying on the time limitations set out herein.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1955–2008 · leading case: Smith v. O/P Transp., Inc., 814 P.2d 23 (Idaho 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith v. O/P Transp., Inc., 814 P.2d 23 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 24× “Neither a notice of security specifying EBI as O/P Transportation's surety nor a notice of cancellation of the policy had been filed with the Commission in Idaho pursuant to I.C. § 72-311. Both Smith and EBI sought to have the Commission determine whether EBI insured O/P…”

Heese v. A & T Trucking, 635 P.2d 962 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 6× “” The commission’s finding that A & T had failed to file its notice of security as required by I.C. § 72-311 was sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties required by I.”

Horton v. Garrett Freightlines, Inc., 772 P.2d 119 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 4× “Repealed former I.C. § 72-311 had provided that certain injuries were deemed total disabilities.”

Clevenger v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 377 P.2d 794 (Idaho 1963). · cites it 8× “, that the four-year limitation is inapplicable to the right to receive medical attendance in a case of total and permanent disability as defined in I.C. § 72-311, particularly where it is determined by the Board that the nature and extent of the injury require continuous…”

Allen v. Reynolds, 186 P.3d 663 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 4× “It is unnecessary to consider Reynolds’ claims regarding the policy issued in her name — whether it was improperly can-celled and whether SIF wrongfully failed to reinstate it — because an answer in her favor on either or both of such questions would not provide worker’s…”

Hix v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 397 P.2d 237 (Idaho 1964). · cites it 4× “§ 72-310(a), on a permanent basis, I.C. § 72-311. Failure of this Court to consider the question whether the Board erred in its rating of partial permanent disability compared to loss of “the whole man” would result, first, in lending approval to a rating of partial permanent…”

Arnold v. Splendid Bakery, 401 P.2d 271 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 2× “§ 72-323, which provides: “Except as provided in section 72-311; Idaho Code. “If the' degree or duration of disability resulting from an accident is increased or prolonged because of a preexisting injury or infirmity the employer shall be liable only for the additional…”

Smith v. O/P Transp., 918 P.2d 281 (Idaho 1996). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 72-311. EBI failed to properly cancel the policy in Idaho, a state for which it expressly assumed coverage.”

State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Quick Transp., Inc., 999 P.2d 895 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 72-707, the Court held the Commission did have exclusive jurisdiction over the question because the dispute arose under I.C. § 72-311(2). Therefore, under the plain words of I.”

Crawford v. Nielson, 307 P.2d 229 (Idaho 1957). · cites it 4× “Section 72-311, I.C., in part, reads as follows: “In the case of the following injuries in the absence of conclusive proof to the contrary the disability caused thereby shall be deemed total and permanent, to wit: “1.”

Anderson v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 291 P.2d 859 (Idaho 1955). · cites it 4× “Except as provided in section 72-311, Idaho, Code, § 72-323 provides for deductions for pre-existing injuries and infirmities; also, I.”

Cox v. Intermountain Lumber Co., 439 P.2d 931 (Idaho 1968). · cites it 2× “In that case, this court held that the use of glasses could be taken into consideration in determining whether an employee was totally permanently disabled under the predecessor of I.C. § 72-311. Therein it is stated: “That does not mean, and we do not hold, that corrective…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 72-311(1) — 1 case

Heese v. A & T Trucking, 635 P.2d 962 (Idaho 1981). “” The commission’s finding that A & T had failed to file its notice of security as required by I.C. § 72-311 was sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties required by I.”

— Idaho Code § 72-311(2) — 3 cases

Smith v. O/P Transp., Inc., 814 P.2d 23 (Idaho 1991). “Neither a notice of security specifying EBI as O/P Transportation's surety nor a notice of cancellation of the policy had been filed with the Commission in Idaho pursuant to I.C. § 72-311. Both Smith and EBI sought to have the Commission determine whether EBI insured O/P…”

Allen v. Reynolds, 186 P.3d 663 (Idaho 2008). “It is unnecessary to consider Reynolds’ claims regarding the policy issued in her name — whether it was improperly can-celled and whether SIF wrongfully failed to reinstate it — because an answer in her favor on either or both of such questions would not provide worker’s…”

State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Quick Transp., Inc., 999 P.2d 895 (Idaho 2000). “§ 72-707, the Court held the Commission did have exclusive jurisdiction over the question because the dispute arose under I.C. § 72-311(2). Therefore, under the plain words of I.”

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.