Tara Martens Miller | Snell & Wilmer
The Idaho Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Moyer v. Doug Lasher Construction, Inc.1, clarifying several critical issues in construction law and the application of the statute of limitations on summary judgment. This case provides guidance to contractors, property owners and their attorneys regarding timely navigating claims for defective construction and related claims, together with the application of the statute of limitations defense in construction disputes.
In Moyer v. Doug Lasher Construction, Inc., the Plaintiff-Homeowners, Moyer and Bower (Homeowners), alleged that Doug Lasher Construction (Lasher) performed substandard work on their home, leading to significant water leaks and defects. Homeowners brought claims for breach of contract and violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, granted Lasher’s motion for summary judgment and found all claims barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Idaho Code §§5-241(b) and 5-216 provide that the time period to bring any cause of action arising out of a written contract for the construction of a home is five years from the final completion of the construction. Idaho Code § 48-619 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for causes of action arising out of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. Moyer emphasized the importance of adhering to these statutory deadlines, noting that even meritorious claims can be barred if filed outside the limitation period. This underscores the necessity of promptly identifying and addressing construction defects.
Moyer’s key holdings include:
- The Repair Doctrine is Not Available in Idaho:
- Some jurisdictions apply the “repair doctrine” to bar a contractor from utilizing a statute of limitations defense when the owner relied on the contractor’s repairs or promises to repair and as a result permitted the statute of limitation to expire. The “repair doctrine” was deemed inapplicable by the Idaho Supreme Court in its 1994 decision in Simplot v. Chemetics.2
- The Court in Moyer analyzed the repair doctrine and declined to overrule Simplot.
- Lasher was Not Equitably Estopped from Asserting the Statute of Limitations as a Defense:
- Equitable estoppel is available to a Plaintiff to defeat a statute of limitations defense when the Defendant by its representations or conduct kept the Plaintiff from pursuing a cause of action during the limitations period. It is not a statutory bar to a statute of limitations defense, and it does not extend the statute of limitations. Rather, it prevents the Defendant from utilizing the statute of limitations as a bar to Plaintiff’s claims.
- Idaho’s version of the equitable estoppel elements include:
- A false representation or concealment of a material fact with actual or constructive knowledge of the truth;
- The party asserting estoppel did not know or could not discover the truth;
- The false representation or concealment was made with the intent that it be relied upon; and
- The person to whom the representation was made, or from whom the facts were concealed, relied and acted upon the representation or concealment to their prejudice.
- In Moyer, the Idaho Supreme Court agreed with the lower Court’s assessment that there were multiple points during the seven years between the purchase of the home and filing of the Homeowner’s lawsuit when Homeowners should have known Lasher’s repairs were inadequate. Moreover, there was no evidence in the record to suggest Lasher made false representations with the intent to keep Homeowners from filing its action within the statutory period.
- The Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lasher, barring Homeowners’ cause of action because of its failure to file the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations. The Idaho Supreme Court further awarded costs and attorney fees on appeal to Lasher.
The Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in Moyer highlights for contractors, owners, and attorneys the need for diligence and careful attention to promptly filing a lawsuit in construction defect disputes. Failure to file within the applicable statutory period may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims, regardless of the merits of the claim.
Footnotes
1. 2024 Ida. LEXIS 151, 560 P.3d 1114, 2024 WL 5150713 (December 18, 2024).
2. 126 Idaho 532, 535, 887 P.2d 1039, 1042 (1994).
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.