Idaho total-loss rules

Idaho is often listed as a 'total loss formula' state, and the statute bears that out — but note the formula is subtractive: repair cost MINUS salvage value, measured against economic sense rather than against a stated percentage of value. Structurally closest to Pennsylvania, Virginia and Massachusetts. Both definitions leave the judgment to the owner or insurer, so the practical trigger in Idaho is the insurer's determination. No vehicle-age limit.

Recorded as an absence after retrieving § 41-1329 and finding no valuation method, comparables standard, tax rule or fee rule. IDAPA Title 18 was not searched section by section. Idaho's leverage is § 41-1329(4), the duty not to refuse payment without a reasonable investigation based on all available information, which is a documentary standard rather than a valuation one.

The quoted provision, § 41-1329(4), is the nearest Idaho gets to a comparables constraint and is the practical lever: an insurer relying on a valuation whose comparables it cannot produce has arguably not investigated 'based upon all available information'. That is an argument about process, not about a numeric test — Idaho supplies no test to fail.

Recorded as partial because the duty is to explain the basis, not to hand over the valuation workings. Read together with § 41-1329(4) it is still a usable pair: ask in writing for the comparables and the adjustments, date the request, and an unexplained refusal engages both limbs. Idaho gives no deadline for the explanation.

The settlement regulation is silent, and the Idaho Code and administrative rules was searched for a total-loss tax provision; the only matches were bill listings: a sales-tax-law amendment and a 2011 act on an insurer's right to possession of a total-loss vehicle. Because no state rule requires it, the audit argues the tax on the policy's own value standard, the way it does for Michigan, and labels it that way.

The settlement regulation is silent on fees, and the Idaho Code and administrative rules was searched for a total-loss fee requirement; the only matches were bill listings: a sales-tax-law amendment and a 2011 act on an insurer's right to possession of a total-loss vehicle. Some policy forms include these fees as a matter of contract, which is a policy question rather than a state requirement.

§ 41-1329 was retrieved and read and contains no appraisal machinery. Title 41 and IDAPA Title 18 were not retrieved section by section.

The absence of day counts is verified, not unchecked: § 41-1329 was read specifically for numbers and contains none. IDAPA Title 18 was not searched, so a rule-level clock may exist. Idaho is therefore like Colorado, Massachusetts and New Mexico: no clock in the statute, and the argument has to be that a delay was unreasonable on its facts.

The qualifier is favorable and worth reading precisely: 'intentionally, or with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice' — the two are alternatives, so an INTENTIONAL single act may qualify without any pattern. New Mexico, Nebraska and Idaho share that structure, against Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut which require frequency. § 41-1329(4) — refusing to pay without a reasonable investigation based on all available information — is the most useful limb for a total-loss valuation dispute.

Five years on a written instrument. Check the policy for a shorter suit-limitation clause; whether Idaho enforces them in a personal auto policy is not established here.

Before filing, the Department asks whether you have tried to resolve the matter with the insurer and whether the policy or claim is an Idaho one. Consumer Affairs Officers handle disputes with insurers and agents; the page describes the section as a free resource for assistance and advice on Idaho insurance matters.

The regulator's name as it appears in the complaint page's title and site header.