ESTATE OF ALDINA EKIC, decedent, and IBRAHIM EKIC and HALIDA EKIC, parents and sole beneficiaries of decedent, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of
the State of Idaho, in and for Ada County. Hon. Melissa
Moody, District Judge.
judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Law Offices, Boise, for Appellants. Kenneth O. Kreis argued.
Perkins, Mitchell, Pope & McAllister, LLP, Boise, for
Respondent. Richard L. Stubbs argued.
BURDICK, Chief Justice.
and Halida Ekic (the Ekics) and the estate of Aldina Ekic
appeal from the decisions of the Ada County district court to
grant summary judgment to Geico Indemnity Company (Geico) on
their claims of breach of contract, misrepresentations in the
inducement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and promissory estoppel and to award attorney fees
to Geico. Geico requests attorney fees on appeal under Idaho
Code section 41-1839.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ekic purchased insurance from Geico in June 2013, with
additional underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of
$25, 000. The Automobile Policy Amendment to the policy
defines an "underinsured motor vehicle" as: "a
motor vehicle insured under a motor vehicle liability policy
but insured for an amount that is less than the underinsured
motorist limits carried on the motor vehicle of the injured
was killed in an automobile accident caused by the negligence
of a third party. The Ekics recovered the total policy
proceeds of $25, 000 from the third party's insurance
carrier. The Ekics demanded payment from Geico for the
payment of $25, 000 under Aldina's underinsured motorist
policy. Geico refused to issue a payment under the language
of the policy.
Ekics filed suit, alleging three causes of action against
Geico: breach of contract, misrepresentation in the
inducement, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Sometime after Geico filed an answer, Geico filed a
motion for summary judgment with a supporting affidavit from
Geico's counsel that included a copy of the Ekics'
answers to several interrogatories, a copy of Aldina's
Geico policy, and the vehicle collision report for the
accident involving Aldina and the third party. The district
court granted summary judgment for Geico on each of these
claims on May 16, 2016.
Ekics then amended their complaint, with the permission of
the district court, to add the additional claim of promissory
estoppel and Geico filed an amended answer. Counsel for Geico
advised the district court during a scheduling conference
that Geico would be filing a motion for summary judgment on
the additional claim and filed this motion on December 14,
before the hearing on Geico's second summary judgment
motion, the Ekics filed a motion to continue the hearing. The
district court denied this motion-finding that the Ekics had
not shown good cause for a continuance. At the hearing, the
district court granted Geico's motion for summary
judgment because the court found that "even viewing all
the facts in light most favorable to the Plaintiff, there was
no admissible evidence to support" their claim. The
Ekics filed a motion to set aside the judgment which was
denied by the district court. Geico requested attorney fees
and the district court awarded them pursuant to Idaho Code
section 41-1839(4). The Ekics timely appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
reviewing a district court's grant of summary judgment,
this Court applies the same standard of review as the
district court in ruling upon the motion. Bedard &
Musser v. City of Boise City, 162 Idaho 688, 689, 403
P.3d 632, 633 (2017). "The court must grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(a). "The
court will consider 'pleadings, depositions, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if