Path to Health v. Daren Long
161 Idaho 50
| Idaho | 2016Background
- Path to Health (Path) engaged realtor Daren Long and RE/MAX All-In (Realtors) to find commercial property; Path bought a condominium unit from the Cannons after Long represented zoning was suitable for Path’s business.
- After closing, Path discovered the unit was residentially zoned; it later obtained a conditional use permit and ultimately rescinded the sale in a mediated settlement with the Cannons.
- Path sued the Cannons initially (settled) and then amended to add Realtors for negligence, breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act violation, breach of good faith, and fraud based on Long’s zoning statements.
- Realtors moved for summary judgment; the district court struck certain deposition excerpts submitted without proper sworn certifications, granted summary judgment dismissing all claims, and Path appealed.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed exclusion of the unsworn deposition excerpts and affirmed dismissal of the negligence claim (economic loss rule), but reversed dismissal of the breach of contract and fraud claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of deposition excerpts at summary judgment | Excerpts may be used under I.R.C.P. 56(c) to oppose summary judgment | Excerpts lacked required sworn certification/affidavit; inadmissible under I.R.C.P. 56(e) | Court: District court did not abuse discretion; unsworn excerpts noncompliant and properly excluded |
| Negligence claim barred by economic loss rule | Long’s misstatements about zoning caused economic losses; negligence claim allowed | Economic losses from purchase are not tort recoverable absent property/person injury | Court: Affirmed dismissal; claimed damages were purely economic and barred by economic loss rule |
| Breach of contract given Buyer Representation Agreement and I.C. § 54-2087 | Statutory duties in § 54-2087 are incorporated into the written representation agreement; Realtors breached by misrepresenting zoning | Agreement disclaimed duty to investigate zoning; plaintiff assumed duty to verify; statute eliminates duty to independently investigate | Court: Reversed dismissal; § 54-2087 duties are incorporated into the contract and do not eliminate liability for misrepresentations; contract claim survives |
| Fraud (justifiable reliance) | Reliance on Long’s repeated assurances about zoning was justifiable | Agreement disclaimed investigation duty; backdating and signing issues show plaintiff assumed responsibility, so reliance unreasonable | Court: Reversed dismissal; factual disputes exist about timing/backdating and repeated assurances—justifiable reliance is a question for the factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Kvamme, 155 Idaho 692, 316 P.3d 104 (summary judgment standard and review) (explaining same standard on appeal)
- McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765, 820 P.2d 360 (use of depositions to oppose summary judgment when admissible and sworn)
- Gem State Ins. Co. v. Hutchison, 145 Idaho 10, 175 P.3d 172 (admissibility of affidavit/deposition evidence at summary judgment; abuse of discretion standard)
- Blackmore v. Re/Max Tri-Cities, LLC, 149 Idaho 558, 237 P.3d 655 (duties of real estate brokers and limits on independent investigation duties under Idaho statutes)
- Brian & Christie, Inc. v. Leishman Elec., Inc., 150 Idaho 22, 244 P.3d 166 (economic loss rule covers defective real property purchases and economic damages)
- Graefe v. Vaughn, 132 Idaho 349, 972 P.2d 317 (realtor negligent misrepresentation barred by economic loss rule in property-purchase context)
- Sumpter v. Holland Realty, Inc., 140 Idaho 349, 93 P.3d 680 (analysis distinguishing contract vs. tort when statutory duties are involved)
- Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am., 159 Idaho 103, 356 P.3d 1049 (elements of actual fraud and required proof of justifiable reliance)