STATE LAW – IDAHO LIBRARY – GUIDE 11
Idaho Duty to Defend, Reservations of Rights & Liability Coverage Defense
This guide addresses the insurer’s defense obligation, reservation-of-rights practice, conflicts, and the distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify.
Potential coverage triggers Idaho’s defense duty
Hoyle v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 137 Idaho 367, 48 P.3d 1256 (2002), explains that the insurer must defend when the allegations, read broadly, reveal a potential for liability covered by the policy.
Doubts concerning covered theories favor a defense
Construction Management Systems, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of America, 135 Idaho 680, 23 P.3d 142 (2001), holds that when there is genuine doubt about whether a potentially covered theory has been pled, the insurer must defend notwithstanding possible policy or substantive defenses.
Idaho generally uses the complaint to determine the duty
AMCO Insurance Co. v. Tri-Spur Investment Co., 140 Idaho 733, 101 P.3d 226 (2004), states that the insurer generally does not have to look beyond the complaint to determine whether a possibility of coverage exists. Defense and indemnity remain separate obligations.
PUBLIC-INTEREST LEGAL EDUCATION
VictimsGuide does not provide legal services or create an attorney-client relationship. Insurance requirements, deadlines, remedies and controlling authority can change. Verify current primary authority, policy language and the law applicable to the particular event before legal reliance.
Official Sources
Verify current Idaho law at the source
The reviewed Idaho guide content above is preserved. Use current statutes, insurance regulation, controlling cases and the operative policy before legal reliance.
Citizen crossroads