Opinion ID: 1298631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: part i preface

Text: Counsel involved will readily see that the validity of Justice Johnson's opinion hinges on the supposed distinction between Cedarholm and the instant case: We conclude that Cedarholm is distinguishable from this case. In Cedarholm the attorney for the insureds had contacted an agent for the insurer to inquire whether the insurer intended to claim subrogation. Here, there was no notice to Farmers by the Miners or their attorney that the Miners had employed the attorney to pursue their claims, including the subrogated interest of Farmers. Notice to an insurer is a necessary prerequisite in a case like this before the insured is entitled to charge the insurer for attorney fees for the recovery of the subrogated interest. The cases cited in support of the portion of the Am. Jur. article in Cedarholm confirm this. (116 Idaho at 658, 778 P.2d at 759, 727 P.2d 1187, 780.) That paragraph is the crux of his opinion, and because I find much wrong in that paragraph, and, because there is no discussion whatever  let alone analysis  of Judge Meehl's opinion, nor any assessment of error on his part, I must respectfully dissent. Before turning to Judge Meehl's written decision, it is appropriate to note that about two years ago  in the era of Justice Donaldson's Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho treatise on appellate review  this Court was very concerned with affording due deference to the decisions of the trial courts. Since that time, however, as may have been noted, questions from the bench have made inquiry as to the rule of law which counsel would have the Court pronounce, and/or, what is the question presented  or both. Today's opinion for the Court is an example of an opinion which produces a new rule of law in Idaho, entirely at odds with Cedarholm, and in doing so ignores a well-reasoned district court judgment founded on giving stare decisis effect to Cedarholm. The opinion for the Court purports to distinguish Cedarholm but, in making the attempt, apparently finds it necessary to resurrect three rather ancient cases which all went uncited or even mentioned in Cedarholm. Seemingly these cases are utilized to give the appearance that this Court, differently constituted at the time of Cedarholm, had relied thereon. Not so. Those cases went unmentioned in Cedarholm. Nor should they have been cited. Cedarholm did cite to a 1959 Am.Jur. citation, it is true, and those cases are twice found in the footnotes to the cited section of Am. Jur. But, they are not cited for the proposition for which they are this day utilized, to wit, that [t]he cases cited in the portion of the Am.Jur. article in Cedarholm confirm this. This goes undefined, but appears to bear reference to the phrase in the majority opinion which reads: Notice to an insurer is a necessary prerequisite in a case like this before the insured is entitled to charge the insurer attorney fees for the recovery of the subrogated interest. (116 Idaho at 658, 778 P.2d at 780.) The holding of Cedarholm was diametrically opposite. There the court held: Recovery by the respondent under its right of subrogation, however, is subject to reduction by the amount appellants expended for collection.  81 Idaho at 142, 338 P.2d at 99. Amounts expended included attorney fees  just as in this case.