Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Eisenman

549 See Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Dist. Court Dist., Fourth Judicial 862 P.2d FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE (Colo.1993) (declaratory judgment would not IDAHO, COMPANY OF Plaintiff- injured party’s then-existing affect third Counterdefendant-Appellant, reasonably rights, might foreseeable as she alleged liability); fail to establish tortfeasor’s Co., Progressive Knittle v. Cas. Ins. 112 Nev. (1996). 908 P.2d EISENMAN, Kathryn Michael John Ma rie, individually co-personal repre consequence It is of no that an insur Eisenman, sentatives of the Estate of Patricia may join injured

er an party third in a dants-Counterclaimants-R declaratory judgment action in which the in Defen espondents, surer covеrage, seeks a determination of see Carver, Temperance Ins. Exch. v. 83 Idaho 487, 491, (1961), 365 P.2d and indeed feasible,

that the insurer must do so when Rebecca L. Ei McGavin Peter 57(b). Brooksby urges see I.R.C.P. senman, individually, Defen adopt court to the converse rule: that an dants-Respondents. injured party may third sue an insurer for a determination of coverage under its insured’s No. 38703. policy. standing “focuses on the party seeking relief and not on the issues the Idaho, Supreme Court of party adjudicated,” Bagley wishes to have Boise, June 2012 Term. Thomason, 806, 807, 149 Idaho (2010) (quoting Miles v. Idaho Power Sept. 2012.

(1989)), “person and it is the wishing to in jurisdiction

voke a court’s [who] must have Howe, standing.” Schneider ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍v. (2006) (quoting Valkenburgh Van v. Citizens Term Lim

its, (2000)). Thus, the fact that an insurer

join injured party third existing

coverage dispute concerning policy that the

insurer issued imply injured that an party may

third coverage dispute initiate a

concerning policy strang to which she is a

er.

VI. Conclusion grant

The district court’s Mo- GEICO’s pursuant

tion to Dismiss to Idaho Rule of 12(b)(6)

Civil Procedure is affirmed because

Brooksby standing lacks to seek a declarato-

ry judgment against appeal GEICO. Costs

are awarded to GEICO. BURDICK,

Chief Justice Justices

EISMANN, J. JONES and HORTON

concur.

551 Offices, Boise, appellant. for

Saetrum Law Rodney argued. Saetrum Elia, LLP, Boise, respon-

Moore & for argued. dents. Michael Moore HORTON, Justice. appeal declaratory judg- arises from by brought

ment action Farm Bureau Mutual (Farm Bureau). Company Insurance Farm Bureau in re- commenced sponse to a claim for insurance benefits filed by personal representatives of the estate (the Estate). policyholdеr of a deceased requested Farm Bureau declar- ing that the Estate is not an “insured” under (the policy Policy) decedent’s insurance payment and is therefore not entitled to damages wrongful Policy’s coverage. underinsured motorist granted The district court the Estate’s mo- determining tion summary judgment, for that Idaho’s I.C. 5- 311, entitles the Estate to recover insured’s for death and that coverage Policy provided damages. for those appealed. timely We reverse. I. AND FACTUAL PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND Patricia Eisenman Bureau sold policy provided cоverage up insurance $500,000 caused an underin- crossing sured motorist. a Boise While street November Eisenman was car struck and killed driven a drunk driver. The driver’s carrier $50,000, which was the limit of the coverage. policy’s liability Because the lia- bility policy limit of the driver’s was less than Eisenman’s underinsured motorist limit, the driver is underinsured motorist policy. within the definition Eisenman’s Eisenman survived four adult chil- Eisenman, Marie, Kathryn dren: Michael (the MeGavin, Rebecca and Peter Eisenman Heirs). Heirs were as None named insureds on the nor did moving party fact that the to a Hеirs live Eisenman at the time of her is entitled judgment as a matter of I.R.C.P. Kathryn death. Michael Eisenman and Ma- law.” 56(c). Additionally, disputed we construe appointed personal rep- rie were serve non-moving party, facts in favor April resentatives of the Estate. On draw all reasonable inferences from the rec the Estate submitted a of loss to non-moving party. ord in favor Cur Farm Bureau. Pursuant to the underin- lee, 394, 224 at 461. provision, sured motorist the Estate claimed disputed no Where “the evidence reveals is sought medical and funeral fact, only question material then sues of un- remains, law over this Court exercises which I.C. provid- der 5-311. Eisenman’s Lockheed, 793, 142 free review.” Idaho ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍coverage, and ed accidental death Farm Bu- 134 P.3d at 644. reau benefit Estate well as $22,941.40 damages” “special for the listed This Court exercises free review Farm of loss. Bureau statutory questions interpretation over wrongful denied the claim for death dam- Inv., Elk LLC v. application. Flying and ages. 15, 330, Cornwall, 9, 149 232 336 Idaho P.3d (2010) (citations omitted). review, Farm On “[a]n Bureau first filed an action for de- 26, claratory May given plain, unambiguous on 2010. Bu- statute must be relief Farm usual, ordinary meaning. Statutory pro complaint and reau later amended the and asked visions should not be read isolation but for a Heirs declaration and the interpreted in the context of the instead Policy] [the Estate under “are insureds ambigu “A entire document.” Id. statute is they and cannot recover underinsured capable ous is of more where payments motorist under the underinsured Hayden construction.” than one reasonable coverage....” motorist The Estate Alcorn, Prot. v. 141 Idaho Lake Fire Dist. against Farm Heirs counterclaimed Bureau (2005) 388, 398, 73, (quotation 111 P.3d 83 parties for breach of filed contract. omitted), grounds by rev’d on Farber v. summary other judgment motions for on the issue 495, Fund, 272 Idaho State Ins. 152 Idaho Heirs of whether the Estate or the are enti- (2012). However, statutory lan P.3d 467 to payment wrongful tled “merely guage ambiguous is not because the Policy’s under motorist parties present differing interpretations coverage provisions. The district court de- 271, 274, Doe, 140 court.” State v. Idaho granted nied Farm Bureau’s motion and 521, (2004) 92 Matter (citing P.3d 524 summary judgment favor of Estate 823, 36-7200, 819, Permit No. 121 Idaho 828 timely appealed Heirs. Bureau (1992)). 848, P.2d 852 and asks Court vacate the district judgment judgment court’s and enter in its poli interpreting In an insurance favor. cy, policy language clear and “where is determined, unambiguous, coverage must be II. OF REVIEW STANDARD law, according plain as a matter of Auto appeals meaning Court from an of the words used.” Cascade reviews Co., Glass, summary de Inc. v. Farm Bureau Ins. judgment order novo Idaho (2005) 660, 751, 662, 141 P.3d 753 uses the standard the trial court uses Idaho 115 same Cas. ruling summary judgment. (quoting Prop. Clark v. Prudential & on a motion for 242, Rescue, 538, 541, 245 Cnty. v. & 148 66 P.3d Curlee Kootenai Fire Ins. 138 Idaho (2008) (2003)). 394, 458, 391, ambiguous if it “is rea policy 224 461 A Idaho P.3d interpreta sonably subject conflicting (citing Corp. Martin v. Idaho State Lockheed 882, Comm’n, Cherry Coregis, Idaho 146 Tax 134 P.3d tions.” (2009) 641, (2006)). standard, 884, 522, (citing Farmers Under that sum Talbot, mary if 133 Idaho appropriate plead “the Ins. Co. (1999)). file, exer ings, depositions, and admissions to We affidavits, determining any, if cise free review in whether gether with the show ambiguous. Arreguin v. genuine there is no issue as to material Idaho, personal pursued, Farmers Ins. Co. decedent (2008) Talbot, (citing representative may bring an action 1047). upon 133 Idaho at 987 P.2d at abated the death of decedent. Any damages an recovers estate III. ANALYSIS in an action for the solely decedent inure to the benefit of the A. Eisenman’s underinsured motorist abate heirs. Claims coverage does not extend to heirs that injured person. the death of the Evans merely are not insureds because the Cnty., v. Twin Falls bring wrongful Estate is entitled (quoting Haley, Vulk v. death action on behalf of the heirs. argues The Estate that it holds all contract (1987)). However, the heirs of a who rights the decedent held before her death sepa has been killed a tortfeasor have and that it is entitled dam- rate cause of action the tortfeasor ages for Eisenman’s death under Idaho’s under Idaho’s death statute: Idaho Code 5-311. person by the death of a is caused When Therefore, argues, it the Estate is entitled to another, wrongful neglect the act or of his damages pursuant of those personal representatives or her heirs or on provision underinsured motorist in the Poli- may their maintain an action for behalf cy, provides which that Farm Bureau will damages against person causing the the insured, pay damages by that an as defined death, or in case of the death of such Policy, the is entitled to recover. wrongdoer, against personal represen- the personal representative of an wrongdoer, tative of such whether fiduciary,” duty estate is “a who is “under a wrongdoer dies before or after the death of to settle and distribute the estate of the person injured. 15-3-703(a). § decedent----” I.C. Howev 5-311(1) added). § (emphasis wrong I.C. A er, explained Whitley as we in Spokane v. & entirely ful death claim is “an new cause of Railway Inland Company, personal rep action____” Elec., Castorena v. Gen. resentative’s role in wrongful the context of 609, (2010). 616, 209, only ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍death actions is “as trustee for the “entirely This cause of action is distinct from 642, 659, 121, heirs.” 23 Idaho 132 P. 126 any may brought action the decedent (1913), Spokane sub nom. & I.E.R. Co. aff'd death____” behalf, prior her own Id. Whitley, 237 U.S. 35 S.Ct. Cox, (citing at 238 P.3d at 219 Russell v. (1915). duties, Along L.Ed. 1060 with these (1944)). 65 Idaho personal representative may “[e]xercise Further, we have held that a power same performanсe, as the decedent in granted in a death action “inures to compromise or perform refusal to the dece the benefit of the hens of the decedent and dent’s contracts which obligations continue as part in no ease becomes a of the assets of the § of the decedent’s estate.” I.C. 15-3- Whitley, estate of the deceased.” 715(3). provides Idaho Code further that: 126; 132 P. at also Moon see Except proceedings as to which do not Bullock, decedent, person- the death survive (1944) (holding right that “no оf action is representative al of a decedent domiciled tort, given to the estate of the victim of a in this state at his death has same granted only is ... to his heirs there are [i]f standing to sue and be sued the courts heirs, right any no no of action vests any of this state and the courts other body.”), grounds by Dog overruled on other jurisdiction as his decedent had immediate- Co., Inc., gett Eng’g Supply v. Boiler & ly prior to death. (1970); Russell, 477 P.2d 511 15-3-703(c) added). Thus, § (emphasis I.C. (holding Idaho at 148 P.2d at 223 personal representative “steps while the into cause action created I.C. 5-311 estate.”), superseded shoes” of the decedent to administer the “does not benefit the estate, Thus, may sue on part causes of action the I.C. 5-327. a deee- provision and that the provision ist is not entitled

dent’s estate death; damages to the promise contain a damages for the decedent’s estoppel theory that no may recover those Estate. We hold only the decedent’s heirs brought through applies in this case. damages, either through an action themselves or the heirs not favored this The Estate has the heirs. brought by on behalf of the estate authority regard citations to Court case, In this while the Estate estoppel. ing argument claim on behalf of pursue a issue, framing considering of the the Estate’s Heirs, motorist cover the underinsured apply might only estoppel ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍doctrine the Heirs or the age does not extend to Generally, quasi-estoppel ap quasi-estoppel. they insureds under because are not Estate “it would be un wherein plies to situations Policy language governing Policy. The right party to assert a to allow а conscionable by underin injuries caused position.” prior with a is inconsistent Bu provides “[Farm motorists sured Dep’t Water Inc. v. Idaho Sagewillow, damages which an insured reau] Res., recover from the owner legally entitled to Dep’t Health (citing Willig v. Idaho motor vehicle operator of an underinsured 259, 899 P.2d 969 Welfare, 127 Idaho & by an (1995)). held that specifically, we have More insured____” (emphasis original). Under invoked properly “[q]uasi-estoppel Policy, the underin- plain inconsistent with a asserting a claim only pays damages provision sured motorist persоn with taken position previously The Heirs an insured is entitled. to which rights, his or her knowledge the facts and they are not insureds as defined concede that seeking appli to the detriment of own Because Eisenman’s in the Highlands, Inc. cation of the doctrine.” mo- against the underinsured cause of action Hosac, Idaho death, we upon her torist in this case abated (1997) KTVB, City, v. Boise (citing Inc. pay- not entitled to hold that the Heirs are (1971)). 279, 282, 486 P.2d Idaho pursuant to the wrongful death ment for any cite authori Usually, party’s failure to a coveragе. motorist in the issue ty position would result for its Zichko, 129 Idaho being waived. State v. Estate, true that it to the it is As (citations (1996) rights and Eisenman’s contractual assumed omitted) supported “not (holding that issues right enforce obligations, along to with law, authority, argu or by propositions of may have any action that Eisenman causes of authority or “if either ment ...” are waived plain lan under the possessed. just if both are lacking, not argument guage of the case, we take the in this lacking.”). But recover dam legally is not entitled to Estate where an clear that opportunity to make it itself, bring on only to an action ages for pursuant to valid claims pays insurer some damages. their of the heirs to recover behalf issued, not there it is it provision of Whitley, the Estate —as a explained in As denying oth subsequently by estopped from not fiduciary agent of the Heirs —does or policy. under the not valid er claims that are judg separate legal interest that the Es Consequently, we hold ment. paid Bureau Policy, Farm Pursuant underin legally entitled to recover tate is not hospital and fu- for Eisenman’s Pоlicy for under the sured motorist benefits an accidental and for neral wrongful death. Eisenman’s was enti- herself Eisenman benefit. Because and the death benefit tled both to arguments not B. Farm Bureau’s expenses, the Estate hospital and funeral estoppel. by any doctrine barred for those shoes stepped into Eisenman’s claims, pay- those Bureau made and Farm Farm contends that The Estate also pay- Bureau’s Farm arguing that ments to the Estate. estopped from Bureau should be under legitimate claims of these the ment to Farm Bureau has never constitute contract motor- the underinsured pursuant to Estate change position or an cov- insured and caused an occur- admission that erage claims. exists for other We hold rence. prevent payments these do not states, qualification without or arguing pay

from it is to required not limitation, that Farm dam- Bureau the Estate for that Eisenman was ages legally an insured is entitled to entitled to recover. motorist recover from an underinsured be- (defined “physical cause of attorney C. The Estаte is not entitled to death”) injury the insured in pursuant fees 41- Idaho Code (occurrence). Damages that an an accident 1839. injured plaintiff is entitled to recover argues The Estate that it is entitled as a of an accident are itemized in result pursuant attorney Code fees (IDJI2d) jury pattern Idaho’s instructions Farm 41-1839 because Bureau failed suffering, impairment include were abilities, disfigurement, aggravation preex- “justly thirty days receiving due” within conditions, necessary isting medical ex- Estate’s of loss. Before an insured penses, earnings, and future pаst neces- attorney is “entitled to an award of fees sary provided by IDJI services others. 9.01. provision, pre under this the insured must certainly damage appear Those elements Arreguin vail.” Farmers Ida Ins. Co. to be available insured ho, 503 Policy. (citing Slaathaug v. Allstate Ins. Nevertheless, argues Farm Bureau (1999)). law, any “[u]nder [Eisenman] claim prevailing par Because the is not Estate against the had tortfeasor ended with her ty appeal, attorney it is entitled to death,” citing County, Evans v. Falls Twin fees. (1990). 796 P.2d 87 holding Bureau stretches the that case a IV. CONCLUSION bit thе case specifically dealt We reverse the district “pain of a claim abatement suf- court and remand this matter district fering” upon decedent’s death. Id. at entry court for of of in favor However, at 93. there is no lan- Farm Bureau. to Farm Costs Bureau. guage Policy damages the stating that Coverage available under P-1 will not be Chief Justice BURDICK and Justice Indeed, posi- if the insured dies. EISMANN concur. bit tion is a difficult to reconcile with the language stating will contract Farm Bureau JONES, J., specially J. concurring. pay bodily injury, damages for the insured’s opinion, including I concur in the Court’s Policy specifically “phys- which the defines the conclusion neither nor Thus, injury person.” ical or death to a the the can Heirs recover underinsured motorist clearly Policy Bureau “will states that Farm Policy wrong- benefits under the based on a legally pay damages which an is enti- insured mean, ful death claim. That does not howev- [physical inju- ... tled to recover because of er, personal representative, acting that a on ry death] or sustained insured.” Farm an estate, may behalf of an insured decedent’s damages resulting to promise Bureau’s not contractually recover benefits available death of must from the the insured mean policy under an insurance like that involved perhaps legally something, recover- here. Coverage P- able accrue under Coverage Policy, the P-1 of the underin- 1 from time of the occurrence to and the (cid:127) provision, sured motorist states: including the death of the insured will be pay damages paid by is Bureau We which an insured Farm Bureau. Farm does liability owner entitled to recover from the to restrict because know how goes operator Coverage specifically or an motor P-1 exclude of underinsured bodily injury “bodily injury vehicle of for which a sustained from driver of ... to make clear its claimed limitation of claim the owner or the order exposure, motor it vehicle barred failed to do so. applicable the statute limitations.” How- Damages an accident accrue from the ever, language Coverage P-1 there is no the occurs. In this case instant accident obligation company’s that limits the expenses required medical were for Eisen- injury or physical for the death of ‍​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍inception of the and man from the accident Apparently, the insured. several later. accrued until hours position that the common law rule takes the Her death was insured of action be of non-survival causes must the payment necessitated funeral ex- contract, every regard- read into Although provision the penses. specific language may policy less whether the state Policy provided payment for of “reasonable otherwise, imply parties or to a and necessary and and medical funeral may agree contract to override the effect years within 3 from date of’ incurred generally applicable of a rule of law. accident, Coverage require would P-1 also interpretation of While Farm Bureau’s In expenses. of such this case the merit, Coverage P-1 some it is claims Estate’s of loss does include person likely more that a would reasonable income, pre- рain suffering and or lost understand the to mean that sumably insured died within because the all insured is entitled recover the accident. had the hours of began available under IDJI 9.01 that accru and lingered insured on for weeks months Policy ing vesting and from the suffering or in- pain loss of time of the accident. See Farm Bureau come, damage also those elements of would Schrock, Mut. Ins. Co. Even be recoverable under (2011) (“If confronted with held that claim for though this Court has ambiguous language, reviewing court pain suffering upon a decedent’s abates must determine what a reasonable (Evans, 118 796 P.2d at policy] would lan [insurance understand 93), recovery allows here mean.”) “[Wjhere guage poli [insurance damages, damages an “is being insured those cy] language may given meanings, be two legally entitled to recover from the” underin- permits recovery while the oth one which motorist, pain until sured at least not, given does be er should death. ceases insured’s construction most favorable to insured.” of dam- Similarly, lost income is an element Further, ambiguous language “Since Id. age entitled which insured insured, in favor of ‘the bur construed Although suffer- neither recover. precise clear and den is on the insurer to use case, ing issue in this lost income is at nor language scope if it wishes restrict the to preclude read our should not be to decision coverage.’” v. Stewart Title Mortensen recovery appropriate in factual situ- their Co., P.3d Guaranty involved here. ation from that different (bolding original) (citing nor agree I neither the Estate While Arreguin v. Farmers Ins. may dam- the death Heirs recover (2008)). Here, 461, 180 there is Policy, thаt not mean ages the does under language indicating that the un no contract not, standing in the pay equivocal commitment to recoverable decedent, con- recover benefits shoes of the physical injury or death is con of Cov- tractually owing language survival, under upon the that the ditioned insured’s 15-3-715(3), erage P-1. Under I.C. insured is not entitled to all elements steps shoes personal representative into the damage began accruing immediately regard to the decedent’s accident, decedent with upon оr that the occurrence by contracts. While a the decision as to whether or statutory separate the Estate or Heirs is only payable be determined after contract, claim, claim not based and recovers dur insured sues the tortfeasor solely motorists benefits ing his her Farm Bureau could underinsured lifetime. case, in this placed Policy in the in based on contract. have such died, since the insured decedent’s medical and fu- P-l in which situations the insured expenses already neral been notwithstanding the fact that she сould not claim since no has been made for other anything against have recovered the underin- potentially damage, recoverable motorist; however, elements poli- sured this is holding appropriately district court’s cy Bureau wrote and that Mrs. reversed. purchased. Eisenman An example category of the second of in- JONES, J., specially W. concurring. demnity appear that does join majority’s holding I that the Es Q “COVERAGE PAY- —MEDICAL tate cannot recover available under provides: pay MENTS.” It “We will 5-311, I.C. necessary reasonable and medical and funer- care, comfort, companionship, such as loss of expenses years al incurred within 3 from the society. generally See Horner v. Sani- date of occurrence to each insured who Inc., Top, 141 P.3d 1099 bodily injury by sustains caused an occur- (2006) (discussing damages). available I fur Similarly, rence.” under III “SECTION join majority’s ther holding Respon agreed ENDORSEMENTS” Farm Bureau estoppel by dents waived the failing issue $5,000 solely “to if an insured dies as a authority cite argue point. or to I write by result of caused an occur- separаtely highlight my reasons for reach occupying by rence while or struck a motor ing those conclusions. vehicle. Death of the insured must occur key resolving this case is to differ- days within 90 after the date of the occur- entiate types indemnity: between two cov- provisions rence.” Neither these is limit- erage solely by that is defined prin- tort-law ed what Mrs. Eisenman could have recov- ciples contract, defined i.e. tort, ered in and her death did not abate her “COVERAGE P-l —UNDER- right contractual to indemnification under INSURED MOTORIST” falls into the first them. categоry. provides: It “We will dam- mind, With distinction it is clear ages which an insured is entitled to that Farm Bureau’s of medical and recover from operator the owner or of an estop funeral could not it from re- underinsured motor vehicle because of bod- fusing pay wrongful damages, ily injury an insured and Respondents argue. Upon Mrs. Eisenman’s case, caused an occurrence.”1 In this death, Coverage Q the sums due under were tragically, Mrs. shortly Eisenman died after properly payable, nothing whereas was due died, the accident. At the moment shе she Coverage under P-l. only right lost not against tort, underinsured motorist in Bishop see Finally, my disagreement I must note Owens, respect one with Justice Jim Jones’ concur- (2012), but also the right coterminous to re- lingered rence. He states: “had the insured cover Coverage under on for weeks or months and sustained P-l. income, or loss of ele- those damage ments of would also be recoverable Farm Bureau could Coverage have worded Policy.” There is no for P-l basis such differently to move it into the second Policy. Coverage conclusion in P-l category a indemnity. example, of For it could have indemnified promised: would Mrs. Eisenman for “In the event the death of of insured, only which, damages these if until we she survived she but insured, judgment against won a the death the underinsured the insured for judgment, would be motorist. This is so because a entitled to recover from the action, operator owner or of an underinsured unlike a mere tort chose in motor dies, vehicle because of abate when the decedent but instead insured and caused an occurrence.” remains enforceable the decedent’s estate phrasing Coverage would have extended through personal representative upon ap- her phrases 1. Boldface words and are defined in the 11-106(1). Constitution, general

plication. See I.C. a and therefore com- Without causes of personal mon law rule action motorist, judgment against the underinsured injured party do not survive the death of the disregard liberty not be at we would Idaho.”); Haley, v. is the rule Vulk extinguished fact that Mrs. Eisenman’s death 855, 1309, 858-59, Idaho 1312-13 claims, regardless whether her tort she (1987) (holding suffering pain and does week, month, year. for a or a survived injured); Craig not survive the death of the 192, Gellings, 148 219 P.3d v. Idaho lan Justice Jim Jones omits the critical (Ct.App.2009) (affirming district court’s order guage Policy stating of the that Mrs. Eisen injury dismissing plaintiffs personal for man can recover what she could recover abated when ground on the claims she or an underin operator “from the owner action). during pendency died noted, previously sured motor vehicle.” As obviously no Mrs. Eisenman had contractual anything Mrs. Eisenman could not recover any damages basis on which to recover operator the owner or once she from was against the underinsured motorist. There is enti dead. Mrs. Eisenman would have been nothing Policy providing damages against tled to recover those lost pain and or an insured’s income lived, had she motorist insured. As after the death of the noted died, right disappeared she once above, necessary only reasonable and medical only theory upon within which she could recover and funeral incurred three the accident years from the date of any damages from the underinsured motorist $5,000 payable pursuant benefit of theory is a tort abate death. torts are a because those 609, Elec., Castorena v. Gen. insured matter of contract between (2010) (recognizing the insurer. accepted generally common law rule that injured by was “where Coverage only P-1 The bottom line any right act or omission another civil damages Mrs. Ei- provides for death.”); injured party’s with the relief ended from the senman could recover under- Ctr., that once she v. Kootenai insured driver and it is clear Steele Med. anything from died she could not recover (2006) (recognizing him. Legislature adopted the common has injury England providing personal law of victim);

action abates the death Corp.,

Hayward Valley Care Vista n. 825 n. 2

(2001) (“[A]n injuries personal action for does

not survive the death of the victim the

tort.”); Cnty., 118 Ida Evans Twin Falls (“[T]he

ho

common law has not been modified or

changed Idaho either statute

Case Details

Case Name: Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Eisenman

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 19, 2012

Citation: 286 P.3d 185

Docket Number: 38703

Court Abbreviation: Idaho