422 P.3d 1101
Idaho2018Background
- Aldina Ekic purchased a GEICO auto policy with $25,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The policy’s definition of "underinsured motor vehicle" compared the tortfeasor’s liability limits to the insured’s UIM limits.
- Aldina was killed in a collision caused by a third party; the Ekic family recovered $25,000 from the third party’s insurer and then sought $25,000 from GEICO under the UIM provision.
- GEICO denied additional payment under the policy; the Ekics sued for breach of contract, misrepresentation in the inducement, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. GEICO moved for summary judgment with supporting affidavit and documents.
- The district court granted GEICO summary judgment on those claims, and after the Ekics amended to add promissory estoppel, the court granted GEICO a second summary judgment and denied the Ekics’ motion to continue the hearing.
- The district court also awarded attorney fees to GEICO under Idaho Code § 41-1839(4); the Ekics appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings and denied attorney fees to the parties on appeal (but awarded costs to GEICO).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by relying on GEICO’s affidavit at summary judgment | The affidavit was deficient and inadmissible; plaintiffs challenge its sufficiency on appeal | GEICO: plaintiffs waived any objection by failing to object below; affidavit was proper | Waived on appeal; district court properly considered affidavit; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether denial of motion to continue was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiffs contended the hearing was prematurely scheduled and needed more discovery/time | GEICO: motion and materials provided well within Rule 56 timing; no good cause shown | No abuse of discretion; plaintiffs received at least 50 days’ notice (more than Rule requires) |
| Whether plaintiff’s substantive claims (breach, misrepresentation, bad faith, promissory estoppel) survived summary judgment | Plaintiffs argued facts supported those claims and UIM coverage entitlement | GEICO: policy language and precedent foreclose recovery (anti-stacking/limits) | No admissible evidence to support claims under the record; summary judgment for GEICO affirmed |
| Whether district court abused discretion in awarding attorney fees to GEICO | Plaintiffs contended fee award was inaccurate and unmerited | GEICO: case lacked foundation given controlling precedent, justifying fees under § 41-1839 | No abuse of discretion; fee award affirmed; no appellate fees awarded to either party |
Key Cases Cited
- Bedard & Musser v. City of Boise City, 162 Idaho 688, 403 P.3d 632 (Idaho 2017) (summary judgment standard and materials considered on motion)
- Esser Elec. v. Lost River Ballistics Tech., Inc., 145 Idaho 912, 188 P.3d 854 (Idaho 2008) (trial court may consider or exclude affidavits under Rule 56 and parties must object to preserve challenge)
- Peasley Transfer & Storage Co. v. Smith, 132 Idaho 732, 979 P.2d 605 (Idaho 1999) (incomplete appellate record presumed to support trial court)
- Kralovec v. State, 161 Idaho 569, 388 P.3d 583 (Idaho 2017) (conclusory appellate arguments about abuse of discretion are fatally deficient)
- Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 104 P.3d 367 (Idaho 2004) (attorney-fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)