Hoffer v. City of Boise, 151 Idaho 400

Hoffer sued the City of Boise for five tort claims, including two for tortious interference with contract and defamation, plus negligence and IIED; the district court dismissed the two contract interference claims and defamation under ITCA § 6-904(3).
ITCA generally imposes liability on governmental entities for their own negligent acts and those of their employees, subject to statutory exemptions.
The city argued dismissal was proper because the complaints alleged malice/criminal intent, which ITCA § 6-904(3) exempts the City from for specified torts.
The district court entered summary judgment on remaining claims, and judgment was entered against Hoffer with preclusive effect; Court of Appeals affirmed, then the Idaho Supreme Court granted review.
On appeal, Hoffer challenges only the district court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal of the two contract-interference and defamation claims; he does not challenge summary judgment on the other claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ITCA § 6-904(3) exempts the City from liability for interference with contract and defamation.	Hoffer: City liable for alleged torts by employees acting within scope.	City: § 6-904(3) bars these torts by governmental entities regardless of malice.	Affirmed; § 6-904(3) exempts governmental entities from these torts.
Whether ITCA § 6-904(3) immunity applies when malice is alleged but not against an employee defendant.	Hoffer argues malice defeats immunity if proven against employees.	City: immunity applies to the entity regardless of malice allegations when § 6-904(3) lists the torts.	Affirmed; immunity applies to the entity for these claims.
Whether the district court’s dismissal should be affirmed on the alternative ground that § 6-904(3) applies irrespective of Sprague analysis.	Hoffer challenges Sprague-based reasoning.	City relies on Sprague and § 6-904(3) to immune entity.	Affirmed; § 6-904(3) provides independent basis for dismissal.
Whether the City is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.	Hoffer seeks fees under I.C. § 12-117; § 6-918A if bad faith shown.	City seeks fees but must show bad faith or lack of reasonable basis.	No fees awarded to either side on appeal.

White v. Univ. of Idaho, 118 Idaho 400 (1990) (immunity under § 6-904(3) for acts arising out of battery by employee)
Sprague v. City of Burley, 109 Idaho 656, 710 P.2d 566 (1985) (immunity theories for municipal liability and malice principles)
Grant v. City of Twin Falls, 120 Idaho 69, 813 P.2d 880 (1991) (ITCA liability generally, with exemptions)
Intermountain Constr., Inc. v. City of Ammon, 122 Idaho 931, 841 P.2d 1082 (1992) (affirming exemption interpretation under § 6-904(3))
Dawson v. Cheyovich Family Trust, 149 Idaho 375, 234 P.3d 699 (2010) (affirming affirmance on correct theory when lower court result is correct)