Storer

MEMORANDUM *

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). 1 We accord no special deference to the district court’s interpretation of Idaho state law and apply the normal de novo standard of review. 2 As the Idaho courts are “the ultimate expositors of [Idaho] state law,” we must follow their interpretation of Idaho’s statute of limitations.

In Lapham v. Stewart, 4 the Idaho Supreme Court held that “the cause of action for professional malpractice accrues as of the time of the occurrence, act or omission complained of’ provided that there is “some damage” to plaintiff. 5 In the case at bar, the critical question is when Truck Insurance incurred “some damage” from Hiller’s alleged failure to convey a settlement offer to the insureds. Under Idaho law, some damage occurs when the damage is “objectively ascertainable.” 6 Idaho law further provides that damage is objectively ascertainable when “there is objective proof that would support the existence *726 of some actual damage.”

In some cases, such as those involving negligent drafting of an instrument, there is…