Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nora v. Safeco Insurance

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 1978No. 12405Published

1DissentMcFADDEN, Justice

I dissent from the majority opinion in several respects. First, it is my conclusion that no award for lost profits or other consequential damages should be allowed in this case. Even if such damages are allowable, however, the majority is remiss in not enunciating standards for which consequential damages are compensable. Finally, I would hold that Nora failed to show lost future profits with reasonable certainty.

I

I do not concur in the majority’s characterization of this suit as a conversion action. While Nora’s complaint alleges Safeco’s “unlawful retention” of the savings certificate, Nora…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Jolley v. Puregro CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Rindlisbaker v. WilsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1974
  3. McLean v. City of Spirit LakeIdaho Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Colorado Kenworth Corporation v. WhitworthSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
  5. Gregory v. PadillaAlaska Supreme Court · 1963

18 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