Employers Insurance v. St. Clair Contractors, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

The City of McCall appeals a jury’s verdict that it breached a contract with a construction company and the corresponding damages award, as well as the attorney’s fees awarded by the district court. We affirm.

*646 1. Jury Instructions.

There was no error in Instruction 3 or 3A. Idaho recognizes the theory of substantial performance. 1 The district court adequately distinguished this term and the term substantial completion in the contract. St. Clair did not need to substantially complete by the date set in the contract in order to claim substantial performance because the contract provided for the possibility of extensions.

There was no error in Instruction 22. Idaho law approves the giving of a futility instruction. 2 Given the evidence of the City’s decision that it would not allow any further requests for time extensions, it was appropriate to instruct the jury on futility where St. Clair was in part arguing that it was futile to ask for any further extensions.

At trial, the City did not object to Instruction 7A based on its lack of guidance as to how to calculate damages. And Instruction 7A, which is patterned on the model Idaho instructions, 3 is not…