In Moyer v. Doug Lasher Construction, Inc., 560 P.3d 1114, 1116 (2024), the Idaho Supreme Court issued an opinion that clarifies several critical issues in construction law and the application of the statute of limitations on summary judgment.  Plaintiff Moyer (“Moyer”) entered into an agreement with Defendant Doug Lasher Construction (“Lasher”) for the construction of a new home, which was substantially completed in November 2014.  Starting in February 2015, Moyer experienced continuing issues with water leakage and repeatedly informed Lasher of the issues. Moyer allegedly received repeated assurances from Lasher that the issues were fixed or would be fixed; however, the issues persisted over six years.

In November, 2021, Moyer filed suit against Lasher alleging breach of contract and violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lasher, ruling that Moyer’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Idaho Code §§ 5-241(b) and 5-216 provide claims arising out of construction contracts for real property must be brought within five years of final completion of construction. Idaho Code § 48-619 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for causes of action arising out of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act.

Moyer appealed to the Supreme Court of Idaho, arguing that the claims were not time barred pursuant to the “repair doctrine.” Some jurisdictions apply the “repair doctrine,” which bars a contractor from “utilizing the statute of limitations as a defense when it has discouraged the owner from filing a timely lawsuit by promising that ‘all defects would be wholly repaired.’” J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int’l, Inc., 126 Idaho 532, 535, 887 P.2d 1039, 1042 (1994).  However, in Simplot, the Supreme Court of Idaho previously held the repair doctrine inapplicable. Here, Moyer argued that the Court should overturn its decision in Simplot, asserting that the equitable and policy issues present in this case were not present in Simplot, as the damaged party in Simplot was a company rather than an individual homeowner.

Moyer argued that Lasher Construction gave repeated reassurances that the water leakage and other issues would be repaired; however, the repair work performed was insufficient each time and never solved the defects. Moyer argued that the unavailability of the repair doctrine would allow contractors to “lull homeowners into foregoing a lawsuit until the statute of limitations has run.”

The Supreme Court of Idaho recognized that other jurisdictions have adopted the repair doctrine to bar contractors from utilizing the statute of limitations as a defense when they have discouraged homeowners or clients from pursuing litigation. However, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld its previous decision in Simplot, stating that Plaintiff’s arguments were not sufficient to persuade it from overturning its prior rulings because there were multiple points in time which Moyer should have known Lasher’s repairs were insufficient.

Pursuant to the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision, the repair doctrine remains unavailable as a means to bar contractors from asserting statue of limitations defenses in Idaho.  This was a definite win for general contractors in Idaho.