358 P.3d 762
Idaho2015Background
- BRN Development, Inc. (BRN) engaged Taylor Engineering (Taylor) in 2005 for civil engineering services for the Black Rock North PUD project; multiple parties also performed planning work.
- BRN believed it had to record a final plat by May 29, 2009 to vest the PUD; BRN spent millions performing work to meet that deadline.
- Taylor’s attorney sent a May 18, 2009 demand letter claiming Taylor’s services required final plat recording by May 29; that statement was erroneous (final plat recording was not required to vest the PUD).
- BRN defaulted on its loan; American Bank foreclosed and numerous related claims followed; Taylor sued BRN for unpaid fees and to foreclose its lien; BRN counterclaimed for professional negligence and misrepresentation against Taylor.
- After summary judgment rulings narrowed issues, the only contested issue at bench trial was whether Taylor was negligent in advising (or causing advice) that final plat recording was necessary to vest the PUD and whether any special relationship overcame the economic-loss rule.
- The district court found Taylor did not provide the specific erroneous advice, BRN failed to prove breach, and no special relationship existed; judgment for Taylor. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed and awarded Taylor appellate fees under I.C. § 12-120(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor breached a duty by advising final plat was required to vest the PUD | Taylor told BRN a final plat must be recorded by May 29, 2009; that erroneous advice caused BRN to spend money and suffer economic loss | Taylor denied giving that advice; any statement reflected BRN project manager Capps’ representations; Taylor’s duties were limited to tasks it assumed | Court held BRN failed to prove Taylor breached any duty; trial credibility findings supported Taylor’s position |
| Whether a special-relationship exception to the economic-loss rule applied | If Taylor provided the disputed land-use advice, a special relationship existed making economic losses recoverable | No special relationship existed; planning was a multi-party, team effort; no clear agreement making Taylor the lead planner | Court declined to review denial of BRN’s pretrial summary judgment on this (interlocutory); on the merits, court found no special relationship and economic-loss rule barred recovery |
| Whether BRN’s claim sounded in professional malpractice (engineer) or ordinary negligence | BRN argued land-use planning advice was part of professional engineering services | Court: land-use planning is distinct from engineering malpractice; applies general negligence duty for non-engineering services | Court treated claim under general negligence standards and found BRN did not carry burden to prove breach |
| Entitlement to appellate attorney fees | BRN sought fees under I.C. § 12-121 and § 12-120 | Taylor sought fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) as a commercial transaction | Court awarded fees to Taylor under § 12-120(3); denied BRN’s requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Borah v. McCandless, 147 Idaho 73 (2009) (standard of review for bench-trial findings)
- Garcia v. Windley, 144 Idaho 539 (2007) (denial of summary judgment is interlocutory and not reviewable after final judgment)
- Dominguez v. Evergreen Res., Inc., 142 Idaho 7 (2005) (same rule regarding interlocutory summary-judgment orders)
- Baccus v. Ameripride Servs., Inc., 145 Idaho 346 (2008) (voluntary undertaking creates duty to act non-negligently)
- Gagnon v. Western Bldg. Maint., Inc., 155 Idaho 112 (2013) (limits on converting contract breaches into tort claims)
- Clayson v. Zebe, 153 Idaho 228 (2012) (definition and scope of commercial transaction for attorney-fee awards)