Todd v. Sullivan Construction LLC, 146 Idaho 118

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed claims arising from the alleged diversion of construction jobs by an LLC member and employee using company employees and equipment. The court vacated the damages portion of the judgment, the denial of a motion to add punitive-damages claims, the directed verdict on the willful-misconduct claim, and the order denying costs and attorney fees. It remanded for further proceedings, including a new trial on damages and specified claims, and awarded appellate costs to Sullivan Construction.

Holdings

1. The district court abused its discretion by ruling that Sullivan Construction could not prove any lost profits without opinion testimony. Lost profits may be proved without expert opinion when the evidence is sufficient to establish damages with reasonable certainty.
2. The district court abused its discretion by denying Sullivan Construction's motion to amend its pleadings to add punitive-damages claims without conducting the weighing and reasonable-likelihood analysis required by Idaho Code § 6-1604(2).
3. The district court erred by directing a verdict against Sullivan Construction's willful-misconduct counterclaim.
4. The district court's denial of Sullivan Construction's Rule 15(b) motion was vacated because, on remand, the court could determine whether disgorgement or restitution was an appropriate remedy after damages were litigated.
5. The order denying Sullivan Construction costs and attorney fees was vacated because the prevailing-party determination had to be made anew after resolution of the remaining claims and damages.
6. Todd and Petersen were not entitled to attorney fees on appeal because they did not prevail.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding all evidence of Sullivan Construction's lost profits because no expert witness had been disclosed.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Sullivan Construction's motion to amend its pleadings to add punitive-damages claims.
3. Whether the district court erred by directing a verdict against Sullivan Construction's willful-misconduct counterclaim against Todd.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Sullivan Construction's Rule 15(b) motion to add claims for disgorgement or restitution against Petersen.
5. Whether the district court erred in determining that Sullivan Construction was not the prevailing party.
6. Whether Todd and Petersen were entitled to attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code § 12-121.

Disposition

vacated