Moyer v. Lasher Construction, Inc., 560 P.3d 1114

In 2014, Casey Moyer contracted with Doug Lasher Construction, Inc. to build a new home, completed that November in Boise, Idaho.
From 2015 to 2021, Moyer and Bower repeatedly notified Lasher Construction about persistent water leaks and related home defects.
Lasher Construction made numerous assurances and attempts at repair, mostly communicated via text messages, but problems continued to recur.
In April 2021, after obtaining a home inspection and sending a formal NORA demand letter, Homeowners filed suit in November 2021 alleging four causes of action, including contract breaches and a claim under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act.
The district court granted summary judgment for Lasher, finding all claims time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations for construction contracts and a two-year limit for consumer protection claims.
Homeowners appealed, arguing for equitable estoppel and the adoption of the "repair doctrine;" the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations on contract claims	Statute should be tolled due to ongoing promises to repair; text exchanges and NORA response were new, independent contracts	Limitations began at substantial completion in 2014; no new enforceable contracts formed; all claims time-barred	All breach of contract claims time-barred under §§ 5-241(b) and 5-216
Equitable estoppel due to assurances/repairs	Lasher's repeated promises and attempted repairs misled plaintiffs into not filing suit, justifying estoppel	No evidence of deception, concealment, or inducement to forbear; mere attempts to repair do not bar limitations defense	Estoppel inapplicable; no genuine dispute as to deception or inducement
Applicability of "repair doctrine" to toll limitations	Idaho should adopt the repair doctrine to prevent injustice from lulling homeowners to wait	Idaho precedent rejects the repair doctrine; only equitable estoppel or waiver are valid exceptions	Repair doctrine not available in Idaho; reaffirmed Simplot
Attorney fees for appeal	Not directly argued, but prevailed parties under contract deserve fees	Entitled per contract and as prevailing party	Lasher awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal

J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int’l, Inc., 126 Idaho 532, 887 P.2d 1039 (Idaho 1994) (Idaho does not recognize the repair doctrine as tolling the statute of limitations; equitable estoppel requires specific elements including deception)
Knudsen v. Agee, 128 Idaho 776, 918 P.2d 1221 (Idaho 1996) (Elements and application of equitable estoppel in limitations context)
Ellmaker v. Tabor, 160 Idaho 576, 377 P.3d 390 (Idaho 2015) (Consideration and forbearance principles in contract formation)