This is аn action involving the sale of certified seed potatoes which was initiated by the appellants, Elmer аnd Bernetta Feld.
I.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are nearly identical to those in
Duffin v. Idaho Crop Improvement Ass’n,
The Felds operate a farm near Aberdeen, Idaho. They, like the Duffins, agreed to purchase certified seed potatoes from Crater Farms, Inc. (CFI) for the 1988 crop year. As was the case with the Duffins, potatoes grown by the Felds from CFI seed werе tested and found to be infected with bacterial ring rot (BRR). The Felds claim the seed was infected when they received it, and as a result, they suffered substantial losses. They initially sought to recover damages from CFI for breach of еxpress and implied warranties arising from the contract for the sale of certified seed, and from the Idahо Crop Improvement Association (ICIA) and the State of Idaho, Department of Agriculture, Federal-State Inspection Service (FSIS) for negligence and negligent misrepresentation in the inspection and certificаtion of the seed. The Felds’ claims against CFI have been settled, and no issues relating to those claims are bеfore us.
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
FSIS moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Felds’ tort claims notice was untimely under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (I.C. §§ 6-901 to -929). Thе district court determined that the notice was untimely as a matter of law. The Felds did not appeal from this ruling, and thus, we are not presented with any issues relating to the claims asserted against FSIS.
ICIA sought summary judgment on the grounds that the Felds’ claims were barred because their losses were purely economic and that it was an “instrumentality” of the stаte, protected by the Idaho Tort Claims Act. The district court concluded that ICIA was an “instrumentality” within the meaning of I.C. § 6-902(1). Therefore, the Felds’ claims against it were also barred by their failure to comply with the notice requirements of I.C. § 6-905.
Finally, the Felds sought leave to amend their complaint to add claims for fraud and punitive damages against ICIA. In ruling on this motion, the district court considered not only whether the allegations advanced sup *1016 ported the clаims in the amended complaint, but also whether the claims were supported by the' facts in the record. It denied the motion because the facts failed to demonstrate the existence of a claim for fraud, and because there was no evidence of the requisite state of mind to support a claim for punitive damаges.
The trial court certified its orders granting summary judgment and denying the motion to amend the pleadings pursuant to I.R.C.P. 54(b).
III.
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT ICIA IS AN “INSTRUMENTALITY” OF THE STATE PROTECTED BY THE IDAHO TORT CLAIMS ACT
[1] Since the district court determined that the Felds did not timely file a tort claims notice and the Felds did not appeal this ruling, thеir claims against ICIA only remain viable if we determine that ICIA is not entitled to the protections of the Idaho Tort Claims Act.
Under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, unléss otherwise provided, every “governmental entity” is liable for damages arising out оf its negligent or wrongful acts. I.C. § 6-90S(a). “Governmental entity” is defined to include the “state,” which is in turn defined as “the state of Idahо or any office, department, agency, ... or other instrumentality thereof.” I.C. § 6-902(1) and (3). The district court concluded that ICIA is an “instrumentality” of the state, covered by the Idaho Tort Claims Act. However, as we held in
Duffin,
ICIA is an independent, non-profit organization which simply contracts with a government agency in order to provide services.
IV.
THE ECONOMIC LOSS ISSUE
The next issue is whether the so-called “economic loss rule” precludes recovery by the Felds on their negligence claim. As we stated in
Duffin,
this Court has adhered to a general rule prohibiting the recovery of purely economic losses in all negligence actions.
V.
WHETHER THE FELDS CAN RECOVER FROM ICIA FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
In addition to their negligence claim, the Felds have sought to recover from ICIA by way of a claim for negligent misrepresentation. However, “except in the narrow confines of a profеssional relationship involving an accountant, the tort, of negligent misrepresentation is not recognized in Idаho.”
Duffin,
VI.
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE FELDS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR PLEADINGS
The Felds sought leave to amend their pleadings to add claims for fraud and punitive damages against ICIA. The district court denied this motion, and the Felds now complain that the lowеr court erred.
*1017
As the appellants in this case, the Felds had the burden to provide an adequate recоrd on appeal.
Schneider v. Curry,
VII.
CONCLUSION
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. No attorney fees on appeal. Costs to appellants.