Brian & Christie, Inc. v. Leishman Electric, Inc.
150 Idaho 22
| Idaho | 2010Background
- Taco Time owns a Rexburg restaurant and remodeled it in 1998; Leishman Electric performed electrical work as the subcontractor.
- A sign company installed two neon signs and transformers after repairing and wiring them; improper grounding and lack of NEC compliance occurred.
- Subcontractor connected power to the signs without verifying grounding or transformer compliance, causing a fire and substantial property damage.
- Taco Time sued the sign company and Subcontractor; settled with the sign company and later filed suit against Subcontractor on Oct. 2, 2006.
- District court granted summary judgment for Subcontractor on the economic loss rule; judgment dismissed Taco Time’s complaint; Taco Time appealed.
- Court held the negligence claim against Subcontractor is not barred by the economic loss rule and remanded for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether economic loss rule bars Taco Time’s negligence claim | Taco Time argues Subcontractor’s negligent service caused the fire. | Subcontractor contends damages are purely economic and barred by the rule. | Not barred; negligence claim survives the rule. |
| Whether district court erred in denying amendment to complaint | Amendment should be allowed to state full damages against Subcontractor. | Economic loss rule still bars amended claim. | Vacate denial; allow amendment consistent with ruling. |
| Whether Taco Time is entitled to prejudgment interest | Claim includes prejudgment interest. | No ruling below on prejudgment interest if amended. | Not decided on appeal. |
| Whether Taco Time is entitled to attorney fees on appeal | Fees should be recoverable under §12-121 if warranted. | Defense not frivolous; no award. | No attorney fees on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. International Harvester Co., 99 Idaho 326 (Idaho 1978) (negligence may not require pro-profit performance; no duty to meet economic expectations)
- Salmon Rivers Sportsman Camps, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 97 Idaho 348 (Idaho 1975) (economic loss includes costs of repair/replacement of defective property; distinction from pure economic loss)
- Just’s, Inc. v. Arrington Construction Co., 99 Idaho 462 (Idaho 1978) (lost profits are purely economic losses; generally no duty to protect prospective economic advantage)
- Ramerth v. Hart, 133 Idaho 194 (Idaho 1999) (economic loss rule applies to negligence generally; context matters when a defective property is involved)
- Duffin v. Idaho Crop Imp. Ass'n, 126 Idaho 1002 (Idaho 1995) (economic loss includes commercial loss for inadequate value; damages to property may be economic if no personal injury)
- Aardema v. U.S. Dairy Systems, Inc., 147 Idaho 785 (Idaho 2009) (purchase of defective property; economic loss rule applied where property itself defective)
- Blahd v. Richard B. Smith, Inc., 141 Idaho 296 (Idaho 2005) (economic loss rule limits damages for purely economic losses in negligence actions)
- Oppenheimer Industries, Inc. v. Johnson Cattle Co., Inc., 112 Idaho 423 (Idaho 1986) (negligence may cover loss of chattel if negligent act destroyed chattel)