UM/UIM Demand Letter - Idaho

UM/UIM (UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST) DEMAND LETTER

State of Idaho

[LAW FIRM LETTERHEAD]

SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION — SUBJECT TO IDAHO RULE OF EVIDENCE 408

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

[INSURANCE COMPANY NAME]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[City], [State] [Zip]

Attention: [________________________________], Claims Adjuster
Re: FORMAL UM/UIM POLICY LIMITS DEMAND — IDAHO LAW
Insured/Claimant: [________________________________]
Policy Number: [________________________________]
Claim Number: [________________________________]
Date of Loss: [__/__/____]
UM/UIM Policy Limits: $[________________________________]
Tortfeasor: [________________________________]
Tortfeasor's Carrier: [________________________________]
Tortfeasor's Liability Limits: $[________________________________]
Demand Response Deadline: [__/__/____] at 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time

Dear [________________________________]:

I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF DEMAND

This firm represents [________________________________] ("our client") in connection with a claim for [UNINSURED / UNDERINSURED] motorist benefits under Idaho law arising from a motor vehicle collision on [__/__/____] in [________________________________], Idaho. This letter constitutes a formal demand for payment of the full UM/UIM policy limits of $[________________________________] pursuant to Idaho Code § 41-2502 and applicable policy terms.

Our client's documented damages exceed the available liability recovery and may implicate the UM/UIM coverage shown in the policy. Idaho Code § 41-2502 requires statutory UM/UIM inclusion subject to the named insured's written or electronic rejection and specified policy exceptions. Coverage, insured status, rejection, and limits must be established from the policy and underwriting records.

Idaho Code § 41-1839(1) can authorize court-adjudged reasonable attorney fees in a later action or policy arbitration when a compliant UM/UIM proof of loss is furnished and the insurer fails for sixty days to pay the amount shown to be justly due. The statute's proof, amount, timing, and recovery requirements must be applied to each claimed category.

II. IDAHO UM/UIM LAW — CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

A. Statutory Inclusion, Offer, and Rejection

Idaho Code § 41-2502(1) bars delivery of a covered owner's or operator's motor-vehicle liability policy unless it includes approved UM/UIM bodily-injury coverage at the § 49-117 limits, subject to subsection (2)'s rejection right and subsection (4)'s listed off-highway-vehicle exceptions. The current § 49-117 financial-responsibility limits are $25,000 per person / $50,000 per accident for bodily injury and $15,000 for property damage.

Under Idaho Code § 41-2502(2), a named insured may reject either or both coverages in writing or in an electronic record. The rejection applies to all insureds and named insureds, and the rejected coverage need not be included in a renewal or replacement policy issued by the same insurer or affiliate. Lanningham v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Idaho, Idaho Supreme Court Docket No. 50441 (July 3, 2024), cautions that § 41-2502 does not create UIM benefits for persons who are not insured under the policy and describes the statute as requiring insurers to offer UIM coverage rather than creating an absolute coverage mandate.

Before issuance of any new policy or first renewal on or after January 1, 2009, the insurer must provide the IDOI-approved standard disclosure statement explaining UM/UIM coverage options, including the two UIM coverage types available in Idaho:

• "Difference in Limits" (Offset) UIM: Coverage limits are reduced by amounts recovered from the tortfeasor's liability insurer.
• "Excess" UIM: Coverage limits are added on top of amounts recovered from the tortfeasor's liability insurer.

See IDAPA 18.02.02 (Automobile Insurance Policies — UM/UIM Disclosure); IDOI Attachment B (UM/UIM Notice and Rejection Forms, revised 3/28/2023).

Both forms are recognized in Idaho. Foresee v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Idaho Court of Appeals Docket No. 51902 (June 2, 2025), enforced the offset language before it and held that an offset policy with a stated limit above the statutory minimum was not illusory merely because the offset eliminated benefits on those facts. The actual endorsement controls.

B. Conditional Attorney Fees Under Idaho Code § 41-1839

Idaho Code § 41-1839(1) addresses an insurer's failure to pay the amount justly due within sixty days after a UM/UIM proof of loss is furnished as the policy requires. A sufficient proof must give a reasonable opportunity to investigate and determine liability and must state a specific sum or a basis for calculating it. Fee eligibility in a later action or policy arbitration is limited by the proof submitted and the amount shown to be justly due. Weinstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 149 Idaho 299, 233 P.3d 1221 (2010).

The fee statute is distinct from common-law bad faith, but a demand deadline alone does not establish either statutory fee eligibility or tort liability.

C. Stacking Rules

Stacking is policy-specific. Gearhart v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co., 160 Idaho 664, 378 P.3d 454 (2016), held the anti-stacking provisions in the policies before it unenforceable because their inartful language did not clearly bar stacking. The decision does not eliminate clear policy limits or establish stacking without first identifying every applicable policy, insured, coverage grant, limit, offset, and other-insurance clause.

[IF STACKING APPLIES — SELECT AND COMPLETE:]

☐ Intrapolicy stacking applies: Our client's policy insures [____] vehicles, each carrying $[________________________________] in UM/UIM limits, for a stacked total of $[________________________________].

☐ Interpolicy stacking applies: Our client holds multiple policies with aggregate UM/UIM limits totaling $[________________________________].

☐ Anti-stacking clause challenged: The policy purports to restrict stacking, but the clause is ambiguous and unenforceable under Idaho law.

D. Individual-Comparison Comparative Responsibility — Idaho Code § 6-801

Idaho Code § 6-801 reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's comparative responsibility and bars recovery against a particular person when the claimant's responsibility is as great as or greater than that person's responsibility. This individual comparison can matter in a multi-defendant case; a generic aggregate “50% bar” description is incomplete. Apply the policy and tort allocation to the actual parties and any released persons.

III. COVERAGE ANALYSIS

A. Policy Information

B. UM/UIM Coverage Trigger

☐ UNINSURED MOTORIST CLAIM — The tortfeasor qualifies as an "uninsured motorist" because:

☐ The tortfeasor had no liability insurance in force at the time of the collision
☐ The tortfeasor's insurer is insolvent within Idaho Code § 41-2503(1)
☐ The policy's uninsured-vehicle definition applies because coverage was denied: [________________________________]
☐ The policy's unidentified / hit-and-run vehicle conditions are satisfied: [________________________________]
☐ Other policy-defined uninsured status: [________________________________]

☐ UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CLAIM — Idaho Code § 41-2503(2) and the policy's definitions, terms, and conditions apply because:

☐ The vehicle is self-insured or carries liability limits at least equal to § 49-117, as § 41-2503(2) describes
☐ The policy's UIM trigger, exhaustion, offset, and damages requirements are satisfied: [________________________________]
☐ The claimed covered damages exceed the applicable liability recovery by $[________________________________]

C. Consent to Settle / Preservation of UIM Rights

Idaho Code § 41-2505 grants the insurer subrogation rights after payment, subject to policy terms. Before releasing the tortfeasor, our client requests the Carrier's written position under the policy's consent, notice, cooperation, and subrogation provisions. Silence is not deemed consent. Under Christmann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Idaho Supreme Court Docket No. 49299 (Sept. 15, 2023), and Bantz v. Bongard, 124 Idaho 780, 864 P.2d 618 (1993), forfeiture based on an unauthorized settlement requires the insurer to prove actual prejudice; policy compliance and subrogation preservation nevertheless remain critical.

IV. THE COLLISION AND LIABILITY

A. Facts of the Collision

On [__/__/____], at approximately [____]:00 [a.m./p.m.], our client [________________________________] was [________________________________] at or near [________________________________], [City], Idaho.

[DETAILED NARRATIVE OF COLLISION — include road conditions, lighting, weather, relevant Idaho geography/road type:]

[________________________________]

B. Tortfeasor's Negligence Under Idaho Law

The tortfeasor, [________________________________], was negligent under Idaho common law and applicable statutes in the following respects:

☐ Failure to maintain proper lookout or exercise due care (fact-specific common-law duty; see also Idaho Code § 49-615 where applicable)
☐ Failure to yield right-of-way under the fact-specific intersection, turning, entry, signal, or sign provision: Idaho Code § [________________________________]
☐ Following too closely (Idaho Code § 49-638)
☐ Excessive speed for conditions (Idaho Code § 49-654)
☐ Distracted/inattentive driving (Idaho Code § 49-1401A)
☐ Running a red light (Idaho Code § 49-802) or stop sign (Idaho Code § 49-807)
☐ Improper lane change or failure to maintain lane (Idaho Code § 49-637)
☐ Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Idaho Code § 18-8004)
☐ [________________________________]

C. Evidence of Liability

1. Police/Law Enforcement Report
[________________________________] (Agency) — Report No. [________________________________], dated [__/__/____]. The report documents: [________________________________].

2. Witness Statements
[____] independent witnesses observed the collision and have provided statements confirming tortfeasor fault. Witness contact information available upon request.

3. Physical Evidence
Point of impact analysis, vehicle damage patterns, skid marks, debris field, and scene photographs all confirm tortfeasor negligence.

4. Photographs and Video
☐ Scene photographs ☐ Dashcam/surveillance footage ☐ Aerial/overhead imagery

5. Expert Analysis
☐ Accident reconstructionist [________________________________] has opined: [________________________________]

D. Comparative Fault Analysis

Under Idaho Code § 6-801, our client's comparative responsibility is less than the responsibility of each person from whom recovery is sought. Our client:

[DESCRIBE CLIENT'S LAWFUL CONDUCT AND FREEDOM FROM FAULT:]

[________________________________]

V. OUR CLIENT'S INJURIES AND TREATMENT

A. Mechanism of Injury and Initial Presentation

As a direct and proximate result of this collision, our client sustained the following injuries diagnosed by treating physicians:

Primary Diagnoses:

• [________________________________]
• [________________________________]
• [________________________________]

Emergency Treatment:
Our client was [________________________________] and transported to [________________________________] Hospital/Emergency Department on [__/__/____].

B. Treatment Timeline

C. Current Condition and Prognosis

[DESCRIBE CURRENT SYMPTOMS, FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS, AND PROGNOSIS:]

[________________________________]

D. Permanent Impairment

☐ Permanent impairment has been assigned as follows:

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

Past Medical Expenses:

Future Medical Expenses (Present Value):

B. Lost Income and Earning Capacity

Past Lost Income:

Future Lost Earning Capacity:

Vocational expert [________________________________] has opined that our client's injuries have resulted in a reduction in future earning capacity of $[________________] per year. Present value of future lost earning capacity: $[________________].

C. Non-Economic Damages

Idaho Code § 6-1603 generally caps a claimant's noneconomic damages in a personal-injury or death action. The amount adjusts each July 1 under the statutory average-annual-wage formula. The cap does not apply to a cause of action arising from willful or reckless misconduct or acts the factfinder determines beyond a reasonable doubt would constitute a state or federal felony. Verify the amount and exceptions applicable at the legally relevant time. Our client's noneconomic damages include:

Pain and Suffering: [DESCRIBE NATURE, FREQUENCY, AND SEVERITY OF PAIN:]
[________________________________]

Loss of Enjoyment of Life: [DESCRIBE ACTIVITIES CLIENT CAN NO LONGER PERFORM:]
[________________________________]

Emotional Distress: [DESCRIBE PSYCHOLOGICAL SEQUELAE:]
[________________________________]

Disability and Disfigurement:
☐ Permanent disability ☐ Disfigurement/scarring ☐ Ongoing functional limitation

Loss of Consortium (if applicable): [________________________________]

D. Total Damages Summary

VII. UIM BENEFIT CALCULATION

A. Offset / Difference-in-Limits Method (Use Actual Policy Language):

B. Excess Method (Use Actual Policy Language):

VIII. POLICY LIMITS DEMAND

Based on the foregoing, we hereby demand payment of the full UM/UIM policy limits of $[________________________________] on or before [__/__/____] at 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time.

Our client's claimed covered damages of $[________________________________] exceed the applicable liability recovery and requested UM/UIM benefit. The Carrier should evaluate the enclosed proof under the policy and identify any disputed fact, exclusion, limit, offset, or condition.

IX. BAD FAITH AND ATTORNEY FEE WARNING

A. Idaho Code § 41-1839 — Conditional Attorney Fees

This letter is intended to furnish a UM/UIM proof of loss for the specifically documented categories and amounts enclosed. Idaho Code § 41-1839(1) uses a sixty-day period for UM/UIM proof of loss. Any fee award in a later action or policy arbitration depends on compliance with the policy's proof requirements, a sufficient amount or calculation basis, failure to pay what was justly due, and the recovery obtained.

B. Idaho Common Law Bad Faith — White v. Unigard

Idaho recognizes a first-party bad faith tort, distinct from breach of contract, under which an insurer that unreasonably and intentionally fails to settle a valid claim of its own insured is liable in tort. White v. Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 112 Idaho 94, 97, 730 P.2d 1014, 1017 (1986) (expressly recognizing "a tort action, distinct from an action on the contract, for an insurer's bad faith in settling the first party claims of its insured").

To establish first-party bad faith under Idaho law, the insured must prove that:

1. The insurer intentionally and unreasonably denied or withheld payment;
2. The claim was not fairly debatable;
3. The denial or failure to pay was not the result of a good-faith mistake; and
4. The resulting harm is not fully compensable by contract damages.

See Weinstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 149 Idaho 299, 315-19, 233 P.3d 1221 (2010) (applying the four-part test in a UM claim).

C. Idaho Unfair Claim Settlement Practices — Idaho Code § 41-1329

The Company's claim handling is subject to regulation under Idaho Code § 41-1329. The following practices, if committed intentionally or with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, constitute unfair claims settlement practices:

• § 41-1329(2): Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications
• § 41-1329(3): Failing to adopt and implement reasonable investigation standards
• § 41-1329(4): Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation
• § 41-1329(5): Failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof of loss
• § 41-1329(6): Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement when liability is reasonably clear
• § 41-1329(7): Compelling litigation by offering substantially less than amounts ultimately recovered
• § 41-1329(14): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation for denial or inadequate offer

Note: Section 41-1329 does not create a private statutory damages action. White v. Unigard, 112 Idaho at 97. A common-law bad faith claim remains governed by its separate elements.

D. Punitive Damages — Idaho Code § 6-1604

Under Idaho Code § 6-1604(1), punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct by the defendant. Under subsection (2), the initial complaint may not contain a punitive-damages prayer; a claimant must file a pretrial motion, receive a hearing, and show a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient for an award before amending the prayer.

Punitive damages are capped at the greater of $250,000 or three times compensatory damages. Idaho Code § 6-1604(3). The jury is not informed of the cap.

If the Company's conduct rises to the level of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous behavior, we will seek leave to amend and pursue punitive damages accordingly.

X. ARBITRATION

A. Policy Arbitration Provision

The policy ☐ contains / ☐ does not contain an arbitration clause for UM/UIM disputes.

[IF ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXISTS — INSERT POLICY LANGUAGE:]

[________________________________]

B. Arbitration Demand (If Applicable)

If [________________________________] fails to accept this demand and an enforceable policy arbitration clause applies, this letter serves as notice of our client's intent to invoke that clause according to its scope, forum, selection process, and procedural terms.

XI. DEMAND DEADLINE AND CONSEQUENCES OF NON-RESPONSE

THIS DEMAND EXPIRES AT 5:00 P.M. MOUNTAIN TIME ON [__/__/____].

Failure to accept this demand in full by the stated deadline will result in the following:

1. Filing of suit in the District Court of the [________________________________] Judicial District of Idaho for covered benefits and any additional relief supported by the facts and law, with punitive damages sought only after the procedure in Idaho Code § 6-1604 and attorney fees sought only if § 41-1839 is satisfied;

2. Demand for arbitration if an enforceable policy clause requires or permits it, with any fee request governed by § 41-1839 and the policy;

3. Complaint filed with the Idaho Department of Insurance (IDOI), 700 W. State Street, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0043, Telephone: (208) 334-4250 | Toll-Free: (800) 721-3272, for violations of Idaho Code § 41-1329 (Unfair Claim Settlement Practices);

4. Withdrawal of this settlement offer, while preserving claims and defenses permitted by the policy and law.

XII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION NOTICE

This letter requests preservation of documents and electronically stored information reasonably related to this claim, including the claim file, adjuster notes, communications, policy and underwriting records, photographs, inspections, expert materials, and applicable claim-handling materials. Any preservation dispute or remedy will depend on the facts and governing procedure.

XIII. CONCLUSION

The completed policy and factual record should establish the claimed UM/UIM coverage, documented injuries, and damages exceeding the requested benefit. [________________________________] has an opportunity to resolve the claim by paying the covered amount supported by that record.

We urge prompt action. Please direct all responses to the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]

By: _______________________________________________
[________________________________], Attorney at Law
Idaho State Bar No. [________________]
[________________________________]
[City], ID [____]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Counsel for [________________________________]

ENCLOSURES:

☐ Policy declarations page and UM/UIM coverage provisions
☐ IDOI UM/UIM rejection form (or confirmation no rejection on file)
☐ Police/law enforcement crash report
☐ Medical records and itemized bills
☐ Photographs of scene, vehicles, and injuries
☐ Wage/income loss documentation
☐ Vocational and/or life care plan expert report
☐ Accident reconstruction report (if applicable)

CC:
☐ [________________________________] (Client)
☐ [________________________________] (Tortfeasor's Liability Carrier — re: consent to settle)

IDAHO UM/UIM QUICK REFERENCE

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Idaho Code § 41-2502: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title41/t41ch25/sect41-2502/
• Idaho Code § 41-2503: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title41/t41ch25/sect41-2503/
• Idaho Code § 41-2505: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title41/t41ch25/sect41-2505/
• Idaho Code § 41-1839: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title41/t41ch18/sect41-1839/
• Idaho Code § 41-1329: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title41/t41ch13/sect41-1329/
• Idaho Code § 6-801 (comparative responsibility): https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title6/t6ch8/sect6-801/
• Idaho Code § 6-1603 (noneconomic damages): https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title6/t6ch16/sect6-1603/
• Idaho Code § 6-1604 (punitive damages): https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title6/t6ch16/sect6-1604/
• Idaho Code §§ 5-216 and 5-219 (limitations): https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title5/t5ch2/
• Idaho Code § 49-117 (financial-responsibility limits): https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title49/t49ch1/sect49-117/
• IDAPA 18.02.02 Attachment B, UM/UIM Notice and Rejection Forms: https://doi.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/info/rules/18.02.02-Attachment-B-UM-UIM-Notice-and-Rejection-Forms.pdf
• Idaho Rule of Evidence 408: https://isc.idaho.gov/rules-procedure/ire
• White v. Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 112 Idaho 94, 730 P.2d 1014 (1986)
• Weinstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 149 Idaho 299, 233 P.3d 1221 (2010)
• Gearhart v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 160 Idaho 664, 378 P.3d 454 (2016)
• Christmann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (Idaho 2023), official opinion: https://isc.idaho.gov/opinions/49299.pdf
• Lanningham v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Idaho (Idaho 2024), official opinion: https://isc.idaho.gov/opinions/50441pub.pdf
• Foresee v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (Idaho Ct. App. 2025), official opinion: https://isc.idaho.gov/opinions/51902.pdf
• Idaho Department of Insurance: https://doi.idaho.gov