McCormick International USA, Inc. v. Shore, 277 P.3d 367

Roberta Shore retained attorney Bokides to represent her in the divorce from William Shore.
The divorce decree transferred Bear River Equipment, Inc. to William and required him to defend and hold Roberta harmless from Bear River liabilities.
Roberta instructed Bokides to notify McCormick International USA, Inc. that she would no longer personally guarantee Bear River's future advances.
Bokides failed to notify McCormick; McCormick later sued Roberta, Bear River, and William for Roberta's guaranty liability.
Roberta initially pursued a third-party malpractice claim against Bokides; the court later resolved damages in her favor against Bokides.
The district court found Roberta reasonably believed William was judgment-proof and that Bokides had a reasonable time to notify McCormick by the divorce decree, denying liability to Roberta for damages tied to a pre-decree tractor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mitigation of damages by enforcing divorce decree	Shore argues Bokides is liable for damages caused by his malpractice because Roberta did not pursue William's indemnity.	Bokides asserts Roberta failed to mitigate and could not show a viable recovery against William.	Roberta acted reasonably; mitigation defense rejected.
Timeliness of Bokides' notice to McCormick	Roberta contends notice should have been given by the time of the divorce decree.	Bokides argues a later time could be reasonable given ongoing divorce proceedings.	A reasonable time extended only to the divorce decree date; notice by decree was reasonable.
Damages for malpractice	Roberta seeks damages reflecting the total liability imposed by McCormick due to Bokides' failure to notify.	Bokides contends damages should be limited by the likelihood of recovery from William.	Damages measured by the full amount of McCormick's judgment causally tied to Bokides' negligence are recoverable.

Davis v. First Interstate Bank of Idaho, N.A., 115 Idaho 169 (Idaho 1988) (mitigation of damages doctrine)
Casey v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 85 Idaho 299 (Idaho 1963) (duty to mitigate damages; reasonable steps required)
Indus. Leasing Corp. v. Thomason, 96 Idaho 574 (Idaho 1974) (avoidance of economic loss; avoidable consequences)
Whitehouse v. Lange, 128 Idaho 129 (Ct. App. Idaho 1996) (cost-effectiveness of mitigation; failure of mitigation if not shown to reduce damages)
Curzon v. Wells Cargo, Inc., 86 Idaho 38 (Idaho 1963) (implied reasonable-time standard when no time is specified)
City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656 (Idaho 2009) (commercial transaction rule for attorney fees in tort-related matters)
Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC, 143 Idaho 723 (Idaho 2007) (attorney fees in commercial transactions; tort-based fees allowed)
Brooks v. Gigray Ranches, Inc., 128 Idaho 72 (Idaho 1996) (fee-shifting in commercial transactions; prevailing party considerations)
Chicoine v. Bignall, 122 Idaho 482 (Idaho 1992) (some damage rule; accrual considerations in malpractice)