The Idaho Supreme Court determined that an insurance coverage dispute fell within the insurance policy's arbitration agreement and remanded the case to arbitration proceedings.

In Mason v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. 33358, 2007 WL 4472244 (Idaho Dec. 24, 2007), Mason was involved in a car accident. After, Mason sought treatment for pain his neck and shoulders.

It was noted that Mason had a preexisting state of degeneration of the spine in his neck and shoulders, but the car accident had aggravated the condition. Eventually, Mason underwent surgery to relieve the continued pain.

State Farm requested an independent medical examination. The medical examiner concluded that Mason's current trauma accounted for 60% of his acute symptoms and 40% should be apportioned to the preexisting injuries. Based on this determination, State Farm paid 60% of Mason's medical expenses.

Mason filed a complaint against State Farm seeking payment of the remaining medical expenses. In response, State Farm filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement in Mason's insurance policy.

The lower court denied State Farm's motion because it found that the arbitration agreement was ambiguous and should be construed against State Farm. On appeal, State Farm argued that the lower court erred because the arbitration agreement was enforceable, and because the parties' dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. The Court agreed with State Farm.

The Court noted that in reviewing an arbitration agreement, it will order parties to arbitration unless it is clear that the agreement is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Whether an arbitration agreement in a contract requires arbitration of a particular dispute or claim depends upon its terms.

In this case, the insurance policy provided that the amount due shall be decided by arbitration where there is disagreement as to the amount due. Here, there is no agreement as to the amount due. Mason wants all his medical expenses covered, and State Farm only wants to pay 60% of the expenses.

Therefore, the dispute over the amount State Farm is obligated to pay falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. The Court determined that the lower court should have granted State Farm's motion to compel arbitration as to the amount due under the medical payment coverage provisions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case.