Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 72-318 (2026)

Invalid agreements — Penalty. 

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

Invalid agreements — Penalty. 

(1) No agreement by an employee to pay any portion of the premiums paid by his employer for workmen’s compensation, or to contribute to the cost or other security maintained for or carried for the purpose of securing the payment of workmen’s compensation, or to contribute to a benefit fund or department maintained by the employer, or any contract, rule, regulation or device whatever designed to relieve the employer in whole or in part from any liability created by this law, shall be valid. Any employer who makes a deduction for such purpose from the remuneration of any employee entitled to the benefits of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(2)  No agreement by an employee to waive his rights to compensation under this act shall be valid.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1971–2017 · leading case: Wernecke v. St. Maries Jt. Sch. Dist. 401, 207 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wernecke v. St. Maries Jt. Sch. Dist. 401, 207 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 59× “I.C. § 72-318 (emphasis added). ISIF maintains that the only type of agreement prohibited by section 72-318 is one that relieves an employer of its obligations under the Act.”
Osick v. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys. of Idaho, 835 P.2d 1268 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 36× “Does I.C. § 72-318 prohibit the offset required by I.”
Deonier v. State, Pub. Emp. Ret. Bd., 760 P.2d 1137 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 28× “§ 72-1414 with I.C. § 72-318, which provides in pertinent part: Invalid agreements — penalty.”
Olvera v. Del's Auto Body, 795 P.2d 862 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 8× “While the whole question here is whether Olvera is an employee or not, I.C. § 72-318 at least suggests that a determination of the real nature of the employment relationship should come before any reliance is heavily placed upon the method of payment or the method of deduction.”
Davis v. Hammack Mgmt., Inc., 391 P.3d 1261 (Idaho 2017). · cites it 50× “In this case, the Commission approved the Stipulation in violation of the provisions of Idaho Code section 72-318, which provides in pertinent part: 7 (1) No .”
Lee v. Sun Valley Co., 695 P.2d 361 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 4× “"Even though no express provisions be contained in the [worker's compensation] statute, it would seem that any attempt to nullify or limit the operation of law must be held to be invalid as being against public policy." 81 Am.Jur.2d Workmen's Compensation § 51, p.”
Emery v. J.R. Simplot Co., 111 P.3d 92 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 28× “” Idaho Code § 72-318 states that: (1) No agreement by an employee to pay any portion of the premiums paid by his employer for workmen’s compensation, or to contribute to the cost or other security maintained for or carried for the purpose of securing the payment of workmen’s…”
Burdick v. Thornton, 712 P.2d 570 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 4× “The Commission found that the fact that claimant borrowed minor items of equipment from T-5 to perform her training duties did not constitute a "furnishing of equipment" sufficient to display T-5's retention of the right to control.”
Mortimer v. Riviera Apts., 840 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 4× “The only evidence suggesting an independent contractor relationship is that one of the owners told Mortimer that he would be an independent contractor, to which Mortimer agreed.”
Ross v. Fiest, 666 P.2d 646 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 4× “See also I.C. § 72-318. We have consistently held, and should observe here, that the workers' compensation law is to be construed liberally in favor of the worker, with a view toward effecting its twin objects of relieving injured wage earners and their families and of promoting…”
Nelson v. Bogus Basin Recreational Ass'n, 484 P.2d 290 (Idaho 1971). · cites it 8× “This figure was arrived at by applying the definition of average weekly wage in I.C. § 72-318 1 -36 times the hourly rate of pay.”
— Idaho Code § 72-318(1) — 1 case
Olvera v. Del's Auto Body, 795 P.2d 862 (Idaho 1990). “While the whole question here is whether Olvera is an employee or not, I.C. § 72-318 at least suggests that a determination of the real nature of the employment relationship should come before any reliance is heavily placed upon the method of payment or the method of deduction.”
— Idaho Code § 72-318(2) — 3 cases
Wernecke v. St. Maries Jt. Sch. Dist. 401, 207 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2009). “I.C. § 72-318 (emphasis added). ISIF maintains that the only type of agreement prohibited by section 72-318 is one that relieves an employer of its obligations under the Act.”
Davis v. Hammack Mgmt., Inc., 391 P.3d 1261 (Idaho 2017). “In this case, the Commission approved the Stipulation in violation of the provisions of Idaho Code section 72-318, which provides in pertinent part: 7 (1) No .”
Emery v. J.R. Simplot Co., 111 P.3d 92 (Idaho 2005). “” Idaho Code § 72-318 states that: (1) No agreement by an employee to pay any portion of the premiums paid by his employer for workmen’s compensation, or to contribute to the cost or other security maintained for or carried for the purpose of securing the payment of workmen’s…”
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.