Region: U.S. | International

William Breck Seiniger , Jr.

Listed in Best Lawyers since 2007

Seiniger Law Offices PA

Seiniger Law Offices is an experienced plaintiff's litigation firm with an outstanding reputation for success, integrity, and client service. Breck Seiniger has a proven track record of multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements spanning 30 years of practice.  The firm represent victims of all types of accidents and injuries, including workers' compensation. The firm also represents victims of sexual harassment, and offer services in many other fields of litigation.  Mr. Seiniger has been:

Mr. Seiniger has received the Idaho State Bar's award for outstanding service to the profession. He has served as Chairman of the Idaho State Bar's Solo and Small Firm Practice Section, a member of Idaho's Brain Injury Association board, the Lawyer’s Assistance Program and IOLTA committees of the Idaho State Bar, is a past Director of the Idaho State Bar among other professional organizations.

Case History

  • Edmondson v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center — In Idaho prior to this case, St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center claimed that it did not have to pay a pro-rata share of costs and attorneys fees for medical expenses recovered at hearing.  In this Workers Compensation the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the Idaho Industrial Commission''s ruling that medical providers had to pay attorneys fees on recoveries of their charges, and that any award of medical expenses had to be paid to the Claimant for disbursement rather than the medical provider. This case insured the right of all Idaho workers compensation claimants attorneys to recover fees for their hard work in securing medical benefits for their clients.
  • Horner v. Sanitop — This case established Idaho law that a defendant in a law suit is not entitled to set-off a settlement with a non-party under Idaho''''s cap on non-economic damages.  The case upheld a $4.4M verdict which was apportioned between the settling non-party and Defendant Sani-top.  The case was unusual in that the parents of a deceased minor recovered both damages under Idaho''s Wrongful Death statute (which does not allow recovery for emotional distress) and under the common law for the negligent infliction of emotional distress.
  • Curr v. Curr — In this case, the Idaho Supreme Court overturned the Idaho Industrial Commission''s sui sponte  reduction of my attorneys fees based on its practice of not awarding fees for work that did not produce "new money"on Constitutional grounds.  The Court held that a party has a Constitutionally protected property right to practice a profession and that the Idaho Industrial Commission''s practice violated due process.  Unfortunately, the Idaho Industrial Commission has refused to follow this case based on a specious justification, and I am currently raising the issue anew.
  • Spence v. Howell — In this case involving a fraudulent land transaction, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld an award for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress where there was no expert testimony that the clients had suffered "severe" emotion distress - an element of the cause of action.  The clients testified that they were devastated when they saw trees being cut down on property that they understood was going to be used as a facility for needy children.  The purchases of the property had promised that the purchased land would be held in trust for the benefit of children to be served by a Christian oriented youth ranch.  The case was important because so often victims simply do not seek professional help despite being very emotionally distressed.
  • Seiniger v. North Pacific Insurance — This Idaho Supreme Court case established that a Plaintiff''s attorney is entitled to a pro-rata share of a recovery of the Plaintiff''s sureties subrogation claim under the "Common Fund Doctrine" where a defendant (but not the Plaintiff) requires that any settlement include that claim.  The case further developed the Common Fund Doctrine in Idaho clarifying the obligations of the parties sureties and the implications for a Plaintiff''s attorney of a settlement in which the defendant insists that the subrogation interest be included - an almost universal practice. The case benefitted the Plaintiffs'' Bar in Idaho, and has become the leading case on this particular issue which arose in virtually every settlement.


  • Outstanding Service to the Profession

Write a client comment


942 West Myrtle Street
Boise, ID 83702
Firm Phone: 208-345-1000

Practice Areas

  • Litigation - ERISA
  • Workers' Compensation Law - Claimants


  • University of Idaho (J.D.) (1978)

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia, United States
  • Washington, United States
  • Oregon, United States

Organizations & Affiliations

  • Idaho Trial Lawyers Association — Member

Other Info

Languages Spoken
  • English