Intermountain Association of Credit Men v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Insurance Co., 44 Idaho 491, 499, 258 P. 362; 27-1904, Idaho Code. Attorney's fees may be recovered without demand of payment or proof of loss where the company has denied all liability. 29A Am.Jur. 781; American Eagle Fire Insurance Co. of New York v. McKinnon, 36 Ariz. 409, 286 P. 183, 186; Anno: 145 A.L.R. 348; Lewis v. Snake River Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 82 Idaho 329, 353 P.2d 648. SMITH, Justice.

In neither case, however, did this Court go beyond the facts to state a general rule requiring premium payment as a prima facie element of insurance estoppel. Indeed, in Lewis v. Snake River Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 82 Idaho 329, 336, 353 P.2d 648, 652 (1960), because the soliciting agent told the insured she did not need to pay the premium until she was able to do so, the insurer was estopped from raising nonpayment as a defense to liability. In this case, Union Security's failure to collect its premiums is a lapse not attributable to Harmon. If it was reasonable for Harmon to rely on the representations of coverage made by Union Security and its agents, it was also reasonable under the specific circumstances of this case for him to believe he was making timely payments to Union Security. Harmon authorized the deduction of credit insurance premiums from his bank account.

The court further found that the defendant's notice that the policy had been lapsed was a misrepresentation on the part of the defendant and was ineffective to terminate the policy even though the defendant's check had been received and cashed by the insured. Klanian v. New York Life Ins. Co., 68 R.I. 126, 26 A.2d 608, 152 A.L.R. 87; Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ashton (C.C.A. 10th, 93 F.2d 565; McLaughlin v. Northern Life Ins., 28 Cal.App.2d 425, 82 P.2d 725; Lewis v. Snake River Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 82 Idaho 329, 353 P.2d 648; Fox v. Bankers Life Cas. Co., 61 Wn.2d 636, 379 P.2d 724. It appears that the defendant went beyond the terms of the insurance policy when it attempted to exclude certain coverage of benefits, which exclusion was not within the terms of the policy.

Receipt of cash for the payment of the first premium is not necessary to the existence of insurance contracts. 44 C.J.S. Insurance § 270, p. 1075; 44 C.J.S. Insurance § 275, p. 1098; Hahn v. National Casualty Co., 64 Idaho 684, 136 P.2d 739-741 (1943); Lewis v. Snake River Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 82 Idaho 329, 353 P.2d 648-652 (1960); 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1316a(2), pp. 392-3. McQUADE, Chief Justice.

2 Couch on Insurance 2d Sec. 21:41, p. 499; 29A Am.Jur., Insurance Sec. 1697, p. 778; 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1407, pp. 722-723. Under statutes such as Section 41-1839, Idaho Code, if the plaintiff has demanded and has sued for more than is "justly due" to him, or for more than he in fact recovers, the insurer is exempt from liability for attorney's fees. 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1408, 728-729; Penrose v. Commercial Travelers Insurance Company, 75 Idaho 524, 275 P.2d 969 (1954); Lewis v. Snake River Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 82 Idaho 329, 353 P.2d 648 (1960); Butterfield v. Western Casualty Surety Co., 83 Idaho 79, 357 P.2d 944 (1960); American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Turner, 226 S.W. 487 (Tex.Civ.App. 1920); First Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. Smallwood, 242 S.W. 498 (Tex.Civ.App. 1922); Southern Surety Co. v. Butler, 247 S.W. 611 (Tex.Civ.App. 1922); Inter-State Business Men's Acc. Ass'n v. Sanderson, 148 Ark. 195, 229 S.W. 714 (1921); Mississippi Life Ins. Co. v. Meadows, 161 Ark. 71, 255 S.W. 293 (1923); Good Canning Co. v. London Guarantee Accident Co., 128 F. Supp. 778 (W.D.Ark. 1955); Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Reed, 231 Ark. 759, 332 S.W.2d 615 (Ark. 1960); Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 52 Ga. App. 140, 182 S.E. 677 (Ga.App. 1935); Woods v. National Life Accident Ins. Co., 166 So. 501 (La.App. 1936); Loulos v. United Security Insurance Company, 350 S.W.2d 87 (Mo.App. 1961); Cross v. Peerless Insurance Company, 351 S.W.2d 826 (Mo.App. 1961). When an insured has demanded from an insurer more than is justly due to him

"The statute in question provides that in any action in the courts of this state for the recovery under such an insurance policy insurer shall pay such further amount as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees unless there is no recovery." In Lewis v. Snake River Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 82 Idaho 329, 353 P.2d 648, this Court under the authority of I.C. § 41-1403 allowed plaintiff an additional fee for attorney representation upon the appeal, pursuant to her motion. Clearly the Supreme Court is clothed with authority to fix a reasonable attorney's fee for representation upon an appeal unless it be determined that no amount is justly due under the insurance contract.