Car insurance claims in Idaho

Idaho is an at-fault state and compels nothing but liability cover. «Every owner of a motor vehicle which is registered and operated in Idaho by the owner or with his permission shall continuously … provide insurance against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death or damage to property suffered by any person caused by maintenance or use of motor vehicles described therein in an amount not less than that required by section 49-117, Idaho Code», and the chapter’s own title is «Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility» (§ 49-1229(1)). NOTHING READ FOR THIS ROW CREATES A PERSONAL-INJURY-PROTECTION ENTITLEMENT, A FIRST-PARTY MEDICAL BENEFIT OR A TORT THRESHOLD — which is where Idaho differs from both Maine, whose § 1605-A compels $2,000 of medical payments, and North Dakota, which runs a genuine no-fault scheme. The floor is $25,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person, $50,000 for two or more subject to the one-person limit, and FIFTEEN thousand — the lowest third limb in this dataset — for damage to the property of others. An owner who prefers may post an indemnity bond with the director of insurance instead, guaranteeing payment within thirty days of at least $50,000 per accident of which $15,000 is for property damage, capped at $120,000 for five or more vehicles (§ 49-1229(2)–(3)). Driving without cover is «an infraction punishable by a fine of seventy-five dollars ($75.00)» the first time; «a second and any subsequent conviction … within a period of five (5) years shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months, or both», and the department must warn anyone convicted what a repeat costs (§ 49-1229(5)).

Shared fault is stricter than the headline. Contributory negligence does not bar recovery if it was «not as great as» the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, and damages are then reduced by the claimant’s share (§ 6-801) — so a crash apportioned fifty-fifty recovers nothing, the same camp as Kansas, Nebraska, Maine and North Dakota, and the opposite of Iowa, West Virginia, Hawaii, Montana and Vermont. What that sentence hides is § 6-803(3): joint and several liability is abolished except where parties «were acting in concert» on an intentional or reckless tort or as one another’s agent, judgment is entered separately against each defendant for its own proportionate share, and each defendant’s fault is compared INDIVIDUALLY to the claimant’s rather than collectively. A claimant 40 % at fault facing two defendants at 30 % each therefore recovers from neither, though the defendants together were more at fault — which is not what «modified comparative, 50 % bar» conveys, and is why the negligence note carries the mechanics rather than the percentage alone. A special verdict apportioning percentages is discretionary for the court but mandatory once any party asks for it (§ 6-802).

Two clocks, not one, and they run the opposite way from Montana’s. An action for injury to the person must be brought within two years, and Idaho says in the same paragraph that the cause of action accrues at the time of the occurrence and that the period «shall not be extended by reason of any continuing consequences or damages resulting therefrom» (§ 5-219(4)); the discovery exceptions there reach only a retained foreign object and fraudulent concealment, so no discovery rule is published for an ordinary collision. An action for «taking, detaining or injuring any goods or chattels» — the vehicle — has three years (§ 5-218(3)). Suing on the policy is a written-contract action with five years (§ 5-216), though no Idaho statute read here fixes a shorter first-party period and the policy’s own suit-limitation condition was not examined. Uninsured AND underinsured motorist coverage must both be in every Idaho policy «in limits for bodily injury or death as set forth in section 49-117, Idaho Code, as amended from time to time», so 25/50 today and automatically whatever that definition later says — Idaho covering both halves in one mandate, where Montana’s § 33-23-201 compels the uninsured half only. Three traps sit in the rejection right: «a named insured shall have the right to reject either or both … which rejection must be in writing or in an electronic record», the rejection «shall be effective as to all other insureds and named insureds», and once rejected the coverage «need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal or replacement policy issued by the same insurer OR AN AFFILIATE» (§ 41-2502(1)–(2)). So an electronic record will do, one named insured binds everybody, and the coverage need never reappear. The mandate stops at Idaho’s off-highway classes — all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, specialty off-highway vehicles and motorbikes as defined in § 67-7101 — and note what is NOT excluded: ordinary motorcycles fall outside those definitions (§ 41-2502(4)).

That last coverage is where Idaho’s regulator earns its place, because since «prior to the issuance of any new policy or the first renewal or replacement of any existing policy … with an effective date on or after January 1, 2009» every named insured must «be provided a standard statement approved by the director … explaining in summary form, both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, AND THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE that might be available» (§ 41-2502(3)) — and the rule then defines those forms. «“Offset” or “Difference in Limits” UIM coverage has limits that DECREASE by any amounts recovered from another party’s insurance. “Excess” UIM coverage has limits that are ADDED to what is paid by another party’s insurance», and the carrier’s Declarations Page for offset coverage «is to indicate that the coverage decreases» by such payments (IDAPA 18.02.02.010.03, .015.02). No other jurisdiction in this dataset states the offset-or-excess divide in a regulation, and a reader can check their own Declarations Page against it in a minute. The logical corollary is a genuinely unusual consumer protection: «to avoid illusory coverage, insurers may offer “offset” UIM coverage at the state financial responsibility limits defined in Section 49-117(20), Idaho Code, ONLY IF COVERAGE IS PROVIDED AT NO ($0.00) PREMIUM», because such cover could never pay once a minimally insured tortfeasor pays (IDAPA 18.02.02.015.03). The same rule also defines how to count its own days for a non-payment cancellation: the effective time «will be no earlier than ten (10) days after the date such notice was mailed», and «the date of mailing is the first day, and the tenth day ends at midnight» (IDAPA 18.02.02.012).

NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR DECISION DEADLINE IS PUBLISHED FOR IDAHO, AND THAT IS AN EVIDENCED ABSENCE RATHER THAN AN UNREAD GAP. The unfair claim settlement practices statute was read in full, all fourteen paragraphs, and a search of it for «days» returns nothing: the duties are «failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies», «failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed», «not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear» and «failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy … for denial of a claim», and all of it bites only where the insurer acts «intentionally, or with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice» (§ 41-1329). The regulatory half of the negative is stronger than most, because the instrument searched was the COMPLETE current rule index of IDAPA title 18, read end to end: its forty-one chapters run from 18.01.01 privacy and 18.01.02 fees through 18.02.01 rates and credit rating, 18.02.02 automobile insurance policies and 18.02.03 certificates of liability insurance, the life and health series 18.03.02 to 18.04.15, 18.05.01 title insurance, the producer and licensing series 18.06.01 to 18.06.06, the solvency series 18.07.01 to 18.07.10, and 18.08.01 fire code with 18.08.02 sprinkler contractors — AND THERE IS NO UNFAIR-CLAIM-SETTLEMENT CHAPTER AND NO PROPERTY-OR-CASUALTY CLAIM-HANDLING CHAPTER OF ANY KIND. Idaho’s only motor-vehicle insurance rule is 18.02.02, which was read end to end at three pages and contains no acknowledge, affirm-or-deny, investigate or settle timetable. The one caveat is the index capture’s date, 23 June 2025, which cannot exclude a rule promulgated since. The single Idaho instrument that does state day counts is § 41-1839, and it is a payment clock.

After a crash, notice must be given «immediately, by the quickest means of communication … to the local police department if the accident occurs within a city, otherwise to the office of the county sheriff or the nearest office of the state police» where there is «injury to or death of any person, or damage to the property of any one (1) person in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500)», and where the driver is «physically incapable» of giving it an able occupant «shall give or cause to be given the notice» (§ 49-1305(1)–(2)). THE MEASURE IS THE PROPERTY OF ANY ONE PERSON, NOT THE CRASH TOTAL — the opposite of Hawaii’s cumulative measure and of Vermont’s «total property damage» — so two cars each damaged $1,000 may not trigger it while one car damaged $1,600 does. The figure’s latest amendment is 2005, ch. 269. The stop-and-remain duty reaches a collision «either on public or private property open to the public» resulting «only in damage to a vehicle which is driven or attended by any person», and on a «divided, controlled-access highway or interstate highway» the stop «shall be made by moving the vehicle into a safe refuge on the shoulder, emergency lane or median whenever such moving of a vehicle may be done safely» — with the sentence worth publishing: a person «who has removed a motor vehicle from the main-traveled part of the road … shall not be considered liable or at fault regarding the cause of the accident solely by reason of moving the vehicle». A conviction brings a one-year licence revocation (§ 49-1301(1)–(2), (4)). Complaints go to the Idaho Department of Insurance, whose own «File a Consumer Complaint» page is what is published here; the online insurance form it links to is NAIC-hosted at sbs.naic.org, which is disclosed and is not published as the regulator’s address. WHETHER INHERENT DIMINISHED VALUE IS RECOVERABLE IN IDAHO HAS NOT YET BEEN VERIFIED AGAINST A PRIMARY TEXT AND IS NOT STATED HERE, and the row is careful about the grade of its own silence: IDAPA 18.02.02 was read in full and uses none of «diminution», «diminished value» or «betterment», but no full-text search of the Idaho Code or of IDAPA title 18 for those terms was run and no Idaho appellate opinion was read, so this is a reading negative over one three-page rule and nothing more — not the byte-level searched negative Alaska and Wyoming earned.