The United States District Court for the District of Idaho held that the Economic Loss Doctrine, which prohibits recovery of purely economic losses in product liability and negligence cases, did not preclude the recovery of damages in connection with a tortious interference with contract claim. In this action, plaintiffs, inter alia, asserted a claim for tortious interference with a contract for the sale of real property and, at trial, were awarded $15,000 in damages in connection with such claim. In opposition, defendant argued that the jury’s award was improper on the ground that Idaho’s Economic Loss Doctrine prohibited the recovery of economic losses under a tortious interference with contract theory. The Court found that under Idaho law, the Economic Loss Doctrine did not bar tortious interference with contract claims, reasoning that a such a claim was designed to protect a party’s economic interest in contractual relations and was a party’s only means of recourse against a third-party who caused him damage but with whom he was not in contractual privity. In its analysis, the Court cited similar holdings by courts in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits as well as Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and New York. The Court also granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motions for an award of costs and attorneys fees based on an independent analysis of the reasonableness of the awards and fees requested.

Kayser v. McClary, No. CV 10-00119-REB, 2012 WL 23780092 (D. Idaho June 22, 2012).