Results
FELL V. FIRST STREET SALOON, ET AL. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IDAHO V. HARRIS HOMES, LLC, ET AL.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND APPEAL
This case revolved around a bar fight where the Plaintiff ended up getting stabbed outside the First Street Saloon, which was a bar in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The Plaintiff ultimately filed suit seeking to recover damages for his injuries in the fight against the First Street Saloon, our firm filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Idaho’s Dram Shop Act. The Trial Court agreed and dismissed Plaintiff’s case with prejudice, entering a Judgment in our client’s favor. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Idaho Supreme Court, and after the matter was fully briefed and argued before the Court, an Order was issued affirming the Trial Court’s decision that the case was properly dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the requirements of Idaho’s Dram Shop Act. In its 2020 published opinion, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the District Court on all issues. Plaintiff was ordered to reimburse our client’s Court costs.
FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IDAHO V. HARRIS HOMES, LLC, ET AL.
JURY TRIAL AND APPEAL
This was a case filed in subrogation by Farm Bureau, which revolved around allegations of construction defects/negligence during the original construction of a new home in McCall, Idaho that resulted in a house fire (Farm Bureau covered the losses and pursued them in subrogation against the various construction professionals named in the suit). We represented Harris Homes, LLC/Peter Harris Construction, Inc., who was the general contractor for the underlying original construction of the home. After extensive discovery and motion practice, the matter eventually proceeded to trial. Following a multi-week trial, we presented our equitable claims to the Court, filed against the fireplace installation subcontractor, arguing in equity they must be held responsible as the party that caused the fire. That subcontractor argued, at the very least, our client was responsible for a six-figure payment, and attempted to argue it should be responsible for the entirety of the Jury’s Verdict (awarding 1,089,000 in damages). The trial court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which favorably decided the equitable indemnity claim we filed in our client’s favor and granted our requested relief: that the at-fault subcontractor must pay the damages it caused, and held that our client was entitled to be indemnified by the subcontractor for nearly all of the damages awarded by the jury. A corresponding Judgment was entered that held our client was only responsible for payment of $47,200 of the $1,089,000 Verdict entered by the jury, and that the fireplace installation subcontractor was responsible for paying almost the entire remainder of that Verdict. The subcontractor appealed the Trial Court’s decision on our equitable claims to the Supreme Court of Idaho, the issues were briefed but the appeal was ultimately dropped before oral argument could be heard and a decision reached by the Supreme Court of Idaho.
FORURIA V. CUEVAS
JURY TRIAL
This case revolved around a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Canyon County and our firm represented the Defendant driver, who had admitted she was negligent/responsible for the accident in advance of the trial. Accordingly, when the matter was tried before a jury, the only questions at-issue were the extent and nature Plaintiff driver’s injuries/damages caused by the motor vehicle accident and that could be awarded against Defendant. At trial, Plaintiff argued for an award in the range of $20,000 to $25,000. After a two day trial the jury ultimately awarded Plaintiff a total of $2,136.00 in damages ($2,136.00 in special damages and $0 in general damages) and a Final Judgment was entered in that amount. Following post-trial Motion practice, the Court concluded that our client was the prevailing party, which was based on several considerations including in particular the amounts being sought by the respective parties at trial, and that we had filed three separate Offers of Judgment (the last was in the amount of $13,000) all of which were ignored or rejected by Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to reimburse our client’s Court costs in the amount of $851.18. At the conclusion of the litigation, Plaintiff’s recovery was $1,284.83 after the costs owed were reduced from the Final Judgment.
MARV’S INSULATION V. MADISON ROOFING, ET AL.
JURY TRIAL
This case stemmed from allegations by Boise, Idaho homeowners that some improper construction work on their home had caused/contributed to some significant mold growth in their attic. The homeowners sued the insulation company who had insulated their attic claiming their negligent installation of their insulation covered the soffit vents causing the mold growth. The insulation company sued our client, a local roofing company named Madison Roofing, that that had been hired by the homeowners years earlier to perform some repairs on the roof of their house; the insulator claimed our client was responsible for the mold growth/damages. The case ultimately proceeded to trial, during which the insulation company argued to the jury that it should place the blame on our client Madison Roofing, while our firm made the opposite argument. After a three-day jury trial the jury returned a Verdict attributing 100% fault to the insulation company and awarding all of the homeowners damages. A Partial Judgment was entered awarding the entirety of Plaintiff’s damages against the insulator, and a Final Judgment entered dismissing the claims against our client with prejudice, with no damages or amounts awarded against it.
BRUNOBUILT V. ERSTAD ARCHITECTS, ET AL.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND APPEAL
Our firm represented Erstad Architects in a case filed by the general contractor against various subcontractors regarding a landslide that occurred and caused damages to a home in the Terra Nativa subdivision in Boise, Idaho. We secured summary judgment in our client’s favor, as to each of the claims filed against them, and obtained a Judgment signed by the Court fully dismissing our clients from the case with prejudice. The general contractor appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. In its 2023 published opinion, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the District Court's decision on all issues and granted our motion for sanctions and awarded attorney’s fees against Plaintiff.
HAYES V. RYR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ET AL.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Our firm represented RYR Construction, LLC in a case filed by an employee of a subcontractor against various other subcontractors regarding personal injury that occurred at a newly constructed home in Marsing, Idaho. We secured summary judgment in our client’s favor, as to each of the claims against them, and obtained a Judgment signed by the Court fully dismissing our clients from the case with prejudice.
BRECKENRIDGE V. WALLY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND APPEAL
Our firm represented Wally Enterprises, LLC in a case filed by a potential buyer at a trustee’s sale against the trustee, auctioneer, and successful buyer. The unsuccessful bidder claimed the auctioneer and trustee violated Idaho foreclosure sale statutes regarding terms and conditions of the sale. We secured summary judgment in our client’s favor, as to each of the claims filed against them, and obtained a Judgment signed by the Court fully dismissing our clients from the case with prejudice and awarding attorney’s fees. The matter was appealed by the potential buyer to the Idaho Supreme Court on these statutory issues. In its 2022 published opinion, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the District Court decision dismissing the claims against the defendants but reversed as to the attorney’s fee award finding no commercial transaction existed between the parties.
FRATES V. EMERY
JURY TRIAL
Our firm tried to successful verdict a case in the Third Judicial District of Idaho involving serious personal injuries to our client from being struck in the face by a thrown golf club. After a four-day jury trial, the jury awarded our client and his wife nearly $450,000 in damages.
CADE V. WATSON
JURY TRIAL
Our firm represented the defendant in a motor vehicle accident case that occurred on Interstate 15 near the Idaho Falls off ramp. There were issues as to whether he should be held fully responsible for the accident. Ultimately, our client accepted responsibility for the accident, leaving the extent of the plaintiff’s damages as the only real trial issue. Defendant offered $16,000 to settle the case before the trial, which plaintiff refused. After a four-day jury trial, the jury came back in 55 minutes with a unanimous verdict. They awarded Plaintiff $8,218.00 in medical costs and $3,000 in general damages. After the jury trial, Plaintiff filed a motion for her costs. Defendant filed opposing motions for his costs and to alter or amend the judgment based on a previous payment for Plaintiff’s property damage and the reduction in her medical specials consistent with the contractual insurance adjustments and write downs. The judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for costs and granted the defendant’s motion for costs as the prevailing party and motion to alter the judgment. A final judgment was entered awarding $11,293.37 in damages against the defendant, and $2,865.68 in defendant’s costs against the plaintiff.
BIEHL V. SMITH
JURY TRIAL
Our firm represented the defendant in a motor vehicle accident involving a roundabout. This particular roundabout was confusing as to its signage and lane markings. Defendant maintained she was not at fault because she was completely visible in the lane and the plaintiff had switched lanes while in the roundabout. In preparing for trial, we discovered there have been 97 traffic accidents/incidents at this particular roundabout. Though defendant had good liability arguments, defendant offered $10,007.40 to settle the case before the trial, which plaintiff refused. After a three-day trial the jury came back with a verdict finding the plaintiff more at fault for the accident. She was awarded nothing. A Final Judgment was entered dismissing the claims against our client with prejudice, with no damages or amounts awarded against her.
SANCHEZ V. KRAMBER
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case stemmed from a fatal house fire claiming three occupants of the home, including two minor children. The children’s father claimed the landlord was responsible for the fire despite the Fire Department’s findings that the fire was completely accidental in nature and most likely the result of a wax candle burner being left on for so long that it degraded the fireproofing of the table on which it rested. The Idaho Legislature established a policy for landlords to provide safe habitation to their tenants. Plaintiff could not establish how the landlords had violated these habitability laws. We secured summary judgment in our client’s favor, as to each of the claims filed against them, and obtained a Judgment signed by the Court fully dismissing our clients from the case with prejudice.
PARKWAY 43 V. JDL CONSTRUCTION
ARBITRATION
Our firm represented a subcontractor in a three-week arbitration stemming from construction defect claims related to the construction of a multi-family residential complex. The Plaintiff claimed the general contractor constructed a faulty building. The general contractor then brought many of its subcontractors into the litigation. The arbitrator ultimately found our client had 0% of the total liability and no damages were awarded against it. Our client was awarded his costs and attorney’s fees in defending the action. However, in post-arbitration motions, that attorney fee award was reversed based on Idaho Supreme Court precedent that an arbitrator does not have the authority to award attorney’s fees for the particular claims raised.