John Block v. City of Lewiston
156 Idaho 484
| Idaho | 2014Background
- In 2005 Block bought a parcel in Lewiston later subdivided into lots 153, 155, and 159 Marine View Drive; prior permits allowed placement/compaction of fill in the area.
- Block obtained building permits, compaction testing, and certificates of occupancy for three homes (2006); later occupants reported settling and foundation cracks beginning in 2007.
- After recurring movement, Block learned of a 1999 landslide in city records that matched the 2009 fault line; he filed a Notice of Claim (Aug. 2009) and sued Lewiston, City Engineer Cutshaw, and others (Oct. 2009).
- District court denied an initial summary‑judgment motion based on timeliness but later granted summary judgment for Lewiston and Cutshaw on a second motion, holding the claims barred by the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) permit/inspection immunity (I.C. § 6‑904B).
- Plaintiff asserted negligence and gross negligence for permitting, inspecting, failing to warn, and failing to require remediation; defendants argued statutory immunity, lack of duty, and the economic‑loss rule.
- Supreme Court affirmed: claims arising from plat approval, permitting, inspections, and failure to warn are immune under I.C. § 6‑904B; no material fact established gross negligence; attorney fees under ITCA denied (no bad faith).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewiston is immune under I.C. § 6‑904B for claims arising from permits, approvals, inspections, and failure to warn | Block: city knew of 1999 slope movement and owed a duty to warn/condition permits; immunity inapplicable or overcome by gross negligence | Lewiston: claims "arise out of" issuance/inspection and are barred by § 6‑904B absent gross negligence or willful misconduct | Held: § 6‑904B bars these claims; summary judgment affirmed on immunity grounds |
| Whether a genuine issue exists that Lewiston acted with gross negligence so as to overcome ITCA immunity | Block: factual evidence (records, affidavits, testimony) shows city acted unreasonably and deliberately indifferent | Lewiston: record lacks evidence of deliberate indifference or conduct meeting ITCA gross‑negligence definition | Held: No material fact showing gross negligence; immunity stands |
| Whether the district court should have applied the economic‑loss rule or other alternate grounds | Block: primarily challenges conduct after purchase; argues negligence claims are viable | Lewiston: alternatively asserted economic‑loss rule and lack of duty to prevent plaintiff’s purely economic losses | Held: Court affirmed on § 6‑904B immunity and did not reach economic‑loss or other alternate grounds |
| Whether defendants are entitled to attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12‑117 or § 6‑918A | Block: I.C. § 6‑918A governs fees under ITCA and precludes other statutes | Lewiston: seeks fees under both statutes | Held: § 6‑918A is exclusive for ITCA actions; no clear‑and‑convincing evidence of bad faith by Block, so no fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Coonse ex rel. Coonse v. Boise Sch. Dist., 132 Idaho 803, 979 P.2d 1161 (discussing ITCA three‑step analysis for governmental immunity)
- Hatheway v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Idaho, 155 Idaho 255, 310 P.3d 315 (summary judgment standard and viewing facts for non‑movant)
- S. Griffin Const., Inc. v. City of Lewiston, 135 Idaho 181, 16 P.3d 278 (discussing gross negligence standard under ITCA)
- Cafferty v. State, Dep’t of Transp., Div. of Motor Vehicle Servs., 144 Idaho 324, 160 P.3d 763 (material fact as to gross negligence can defeat immunity)
- Athay v. Stacey, 146 Idaho 407, 196 P.3d 325 (I.C. § 6‑918A governs attorney fees in ITCA actions)
- Cordova v. Bonneville Cnty. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 93, 144 Idaho 637, 167 P.3d 774 (bad faith defined for fee awards)
- Syringa Networks, LLC v. Idaho Dep’t of Admin., 155 Idaho 55, 305 P.3d 499 (construction of I.C. § 12‑117’s "unless otherwise provided" language)
- Beehler v. Fremont Cnty., 145 Idaho 656, 182 P.3d 713 (Ct. App. discussion of § 12‑117 vs. ITCA fees)
- Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 229 P.3d 1146 (issues not argued are waived)
- Harris v. State Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 295, 847 P.2d 1156 (ITCA tort recovery threshold)