Opinion ID: 2533998
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kelso & Irwin, P.A. v. State Ins. Fund, 134 Idaho 130, 997 P.2d 591 (2000).

Text: In 1996 Kelso filed a Complaint against the SIF alleging that the SIF's sale of workers' compensation insurance at artificially low premiums threatened the fund's surplus. The Complaint arose out of a 1996 law enabling the SIF to sell workers' compensation insurance to farm workers and lowering the minimum premium for qualifying small employers. The Complaint sought injunctive relief and attorney fees. No jury trial was demanded. Kelso filed a First Amended Complaint in 1998, alleging that the SIF was retaining premiums for its surplus in excess of the amount authorized by statute. Kelso also challenged an SIF investment in State property, alleging that the SIF had squandered its assets on terms unreasonably favorable to the State. The State was added as a defendant. No jury trial was demanded. The district court granted the SIF's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Kelso appealed to the Supreme Court. This Court held that the SIF's policyholders had no property interests in the SIF's assets and that the SIF could not be estopped from denying that its policyholders had any property interest in its surpluses and reserves. The Court held that the sale of insurance policies at the lower premiums did not breach the policyholders' insurance contracts with the SIF. However, the Court determined that because the statutes governing the SIF were necessarily part of Kelso's contract with the SIF, and Kelso has alleged a violation of these statutory provisions, we believe Kelso has alleged sufficient facts to support a cause of action for breach of contract. Kelso & Irwin, P.A. v. State Ins. Fund, 134 Idaho 130, 140, 997 P.2d 591, 601 (2000).