Emery v. United Pacific Insurance
Idaho Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBakes, Chief Justice
I
I agree with the portion of the Court’s opinion which holds that under I.C. § 41-1839 the plaintiff should be awarded attorney fees incurred relating to the litigation. However, the effect of today’s opinion is to repeal the provisions of I.C. § 7-910, which provides that the arbitration award shall not include counsel fees. The best resolution of these two statutes is to prorate the attorney fees between that portion caused by the litigation, and that portion incurred in the conducting of the arbitration. It has always been the rule of statutory construction to interpret two conflicting…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brinkman v. Aid Insurance Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1988
- Mitchell v. FlandroIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
- Davis v. Professional Business Services, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1985
- Farm Development Corporation v. HernandezIdaho Supreme Court · 1970
- Barber v. HonorofIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.