Legal Opinion

Parsons v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 2007No. 32603PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EISMANN, Justice.

This appeal challenges the reasonableness of the award of attorney fees to an insured pursuant to Idaho Code § 41-1839. The insurer contends that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees in an amount consistent with the contingent fee agreement rather than in an amount based upon an hourly fee. We affirm the district court.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about August 19, 2002, Rena Parsons (Parsons) was injured in an automobile *745collision caused entirely by the negligence of another driver. The other driver had an insurance policy with liability…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Brinkman v. Aid Insurance Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Smith v. MittonIdaho Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Hines v. HinesIdaho Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Halliday v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Bott v. Idaho State Building AuthorityIdaho Supreme Court · 1996

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. F. Kim Bailey v. Kerry BaileyIdaho Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Weinstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. SpackmanIdaho Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Hurtado v. LAND O'LAKES, INC.Idaho Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Lee v. NickersonIdaho Supreme Court · 2008

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API