The Estate of Benjamin Holland v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance, 153 Idaho 94

Idaho Supreme Court reviews denial of attorney fees under I.C. § 41-1839 in a dispute arising from Hollands’ underinsured motorist claims against MetLife Auto & Home.
Settled facts include Hollands’ estate and individuals seeking fees after MetLife offered policy limits and the Hollands pursued three MetLife policies.
The district court denied attorney-fee relief, ruling proof of loss failed to set forth the legal theory of coverage, and thus preventing the fee award.
The Hollands argued a proof of loss need only provide information enabling investigation and liability determination, not a theory of coverage.
Thereafter, the court found issues of fact on knowledge of the suit and the reasonableness of the insurer’s initial refusal and the time extensions, and it denied enforcement of a settlement and attorney-fee award.
The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the judgment, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, and awarded costs on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a proof of loss must explain the legal theory of coverage	Hollands: proof of loss need not include coverage theory.	MetLife: proof must include the legal theory underlying coverage.	Proof of loss need not include a coverage theory.
Whether the district court erred in enforcing the settlement based on the proof-of-loss defect	Settlement enforcement valid regardless of theory; proof deficiency should not bar enforcement.	Enforcement appropriate only if proof of loss supports coverage theory used to settle.	District court erred in enforcing settlement on basis of defective proof of loss.
Whether Hollands prevailed for purposes of 41-1839	Hollands prevailed since MetLife offered no money before suit and they sued within 30 days.	Prevailing party unclear due to knowledge/extension disputes.	Hollands prevailed under §41-1839; knowledge is not a prerequisite.
Whether the memorandum of costs/attorney-fee affidavit complied with Rule 54(d)	Affidavit suffices if it states basis of computation; no memorandum filed.	Proper procedure requires a memorandum of costs; timely objections follow.	Affidavit insufficient; need proper memorandum of costs or excusable neglect analysis.
Whether Hollands can recover attorney fees on appeal	If entitled below, may recover on appeal; court retains discretion.	Appeal-fee award to be determined after below ruling.	Remand appropriate to determine entitlement on appeal per §41-1839.

Parsons v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 152 P.3d 614 (Idaho 2007) (sets framework for 41-1839 entitlement (proof of loss and failure to pay))
Greenough v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Idaho, 130 P.3d 1127 (Idaho 2006) (proof of loss sufficient when information allows reasonable investigation)
Brinkman v. Aid Ins. Co., 766 P.2d 1227 (Idaho 1988) (loss vs. liability; information must distinguish loss to insurer’s investigation)
Boel v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 43 P.3d 768 (Idaho 2002) (determines “amount justly due” and payment/tender requirements)
Crowley v. Lafayette Life Ins. Co., 683 P.2d 854 (Idaho 1984) (premature memorandum of costs treated as timely; objections window explained)
Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 61 P.3d 601 (Idaho 2002) (statutory framework for determining “amount justly due” through settlement/arbitration)
Vanderford Co., Inc. v. Knudson, 249 P.3d 857 (Idaho 2011) (settlement supersedes and extinguishes pre-existing claims)
Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 735 P.2d 974 (Idaho 1987) (proof of loss timing under the thirty-day rule)
Walton v. Hartford Ins. Co., 818 P.2d 320 (Idaho 1991) (purpose of 41-1839 is to encourage settlement and timely payment)