416 P.3d 943
Idaho2018Background
- Scott and Anne Davison hired Gould to substantially remodel their Idaho vacation home; Gould subcontracted plumbing to DeBest Plumbing, which completed work in June 2013.
- On July 25, 2013 the Davisons discovered a leak from a DeBest‑installed bathtub that caused extensive water damage. Gould and a DeBest employee inspected, DeBest admitted fault, repaired the leak, and agreed to pay for repairs.
- Gould’s repair bill totaled $123,345.64; DeBest’s insurer’s adjuster estimated $24,005.06. Parties could not agree; the Davisons sued in July 2015 asserting contract, warranty, and negligence claims.
- District court granted summary judgment for DeBest on contract/warranty claims for lack of privity, and later granted summary judgment on negligence claims for failure to comply with the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act (NORA), I.C. §§ 6‑2501–2504.
- On appeal the Davisons argued NORA didn’t apply or that they substantially complied because DeBest had actual notice and inspected; they also argued NORA abrogated privity.
- Supreme Court: affirmed dismissal of contractual claims for lack of privity, reversed summary judgment on negligence (actual notice + inspection excused strict NORA service), vacated attorney‑fee award, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NORA applies | NORA inapplicable to their claim (raised on appeal) | NORA applies to defects in substantial remodels | Court refused to consider (issue invited by plaintiffs’ motion) |
| Whether plaintiffs satisfied NORA’s written‑service requirement | Substantial compliance: DeBest had actual notice, inspected, and promised to pay | Plaintiffs failed to serve written notice as I.C. §6‑2503(1) requires | Held plaintiffs’ actual notice + opportunity to inspect satisfied NORA; summary judgment on negligence reversed |
| Whether equitable relief can excuse strict NORA compliance | Equity should excuse strict compliance here | NORA’s statutory scheme governs and precludes equitable override | Court declined to address equity (moot after deciding actual‑notice ground) |
| Whether NORA abrogates privity for contract/warranty claims | NORA allows suits against subcontractors (construction professionals) even without privity | NORA does not create new contract causes or eliminate privity requirement | Held NORA does not abrogate common‑law privity; contractual claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendenhall v. Aldous, 146 Idaho 434, 196 P.3d 352 (statutory purpose of NORA: give contractors chance to fix defects before suit)
- CNW, LLC v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 161 Idaho 89, 383 P.3d 1259 (substantial‑compliance/actual notice to agent can satisfy statutorily prescribed notice requirements)
- Wing v. Martin, 107 Idaho 267, 688 P.2d 1172 (party not in privity cannot sue on a contract)