Idaho Wool Growers v. State of Idaho Fish & Game
154 Idaho 716
| Idaho | 2012Background
- IWGA and members sued the State and IDFG, alleging indemnification for economic losses from Forest Service permit modifications tied to bighorn sheep reintroduction in Hells Canyon.
- The 1997 letter from IDFG and the Hells Canyon Bighorn Sheep Restoration Committee suggested recognition of existing domestic sheep operations and acceptance of disease risk, and stated the departments would take action to reduce bighorn losses, but did not promise indemnification.
- Idaho’s 1997 amendments to I.C. § 36-106(e)(5)(D) required notice and hearings for bighorn transplants and mandated letters to affected permittees acknowledging risk, not indemnification.
- Beginning in 2007, the Forest Service modified Shirts/Shirts Brothers grazing permits after an administrative challenge; district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal, Wool Growers argued contract, statutory, and estoppel theories for indemnification; they concede IDFG cannot block Forest Service actions and seek monetary indemnification instead.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding no indemnity promise or right existed, and awarded costs and attorney fees to respondents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 1997 letter create a contractual indemnity obligation? | Shirts asserts the letter guarantees indemnification for losses. | Letter does not contain a clear indemnity promise; even if a contract, it imposes no such duty. | No indemnity promise; contract claim properly dismissed. |
| Does I.C. § 36-106(e)(5)(D) provide indemnification rights? | Statute mirrors letter language and should be read to authorize damages against the State. | Statute merely holds domestic sheep operations harmless for disease transmission; no indemnity obligation. | Statute does not provide indemnification. |
| Are promissory/equitable/quasi-estoppel claims viable? | Promissory/equitable/quasi-estoppel should prevent reliance on the letter’s representations. | Estoppel cannot substitute for sovereign obligation and there was no promise to indemnify. | Estoppel claims fail; no promise to indemnify appears in the letter. |
| Attorney fees entitlement under I.C. § 12-117? | The Wool Growers should recover fees if the suit lacks reasonable basis. | Respondents prevail on dismissal; fees justified. | IDFG awarded attorney fees and costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffer v. City of Boise, 151 Idaho 400 (2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; factual support required)
- Independence Lead Mines Co. v. Hecla Mining Co., 143 Idaho 22 (2006) (contract interpretation; unambiguous terms control)
- Shore v. Peterson, 204 P.3d 1114 (2009) (contract formation question depends on facts)
- Bakker v. Thunder Spring–Wareham, LLC, 141 Idaho 185 (2005) (interpretation of unambiguous contracts; indemnity duties must be clear)
- Gillihan v. Gump, 92 P.3d 514 (2009) (legislative intent in statutory interpretation; evidence not to defeat clear language)
- Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 224 P.3d 494 (2009) (legislative intent as question of law)
- Sagewillow, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 70 P.3d 669 (2003) (estoppel against state agencies where just and fair dealing requires it)