Opinion ID: 874008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chase properly raised Stonebrook's ICRA registration status as a defense.

Text: Stonebrook argues that the district court erred by permitting Chase to raise Stonebrook's ICRA registration status as a defense and submits two arguments in support of its contention. Stonebrook first argues that Chase cannot raise the issue of the LLC's alleged failure to comply with the ICRA because Chase lacks standing to assert the statute as a defense. This argument is without merit. As we recently reiterated, [s]tanding is a subcategory of justiciability, and the standing inquiry is focused on the party seeking relief. Taylor v. AIA Servs. Corp., 151 Idaho 552, 564, 261 P.3d 829, 841 (2011) (citing Martin v. Camas Cnty., 150 Idaho 508, 513, 248 P.3d 1243, 1248 (2011)). Therefore, a defendant's standing is not at issue when evaluating the merits of a defense. Id. In this case, Chase was the defendant and invoked Stonebrook's failure to comply with the ICRA as a defense. Chase's standing is therefore not an issue because it is not the party seeking relief. We hold that a defendant is not required to prove standing before raising a contractor's registration status as a defense in an action brought by the contractor. [1] Stonebrook's second argument relies on precedent addressing the standards for application of a statute to establish negligence per se: In order for the violation of a statute to be pertinent in a particular case, the statute must be applicable; that is, the statute must be designed to protect (1) the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included (2) against the type of harm which has in fact occurred as a result of its violation. Kinney v. Smith, 95 Idaho 328, 331, 508 P.2d 1234, 1237 (1973) (citing Prosser on Torts 191-202 (3d ed. 1964)). Stonebrook argues that in order for Chase to invoke the ICRA in its defense, Chase must demonstrate that it is within the class the ICRA was designed to protect and that its injury is the type of harm the Act was designed to prevent. We disagree. When the Legislature enacted the ICRA, it took the extraordinary step of expressly stripping the economic protections typically extended to contractors. First, the Act's penalty section prohibits unregistered contractors from bringing or maintaining any action in any court of this state for the collection of compensation for any contracting work done. I.C. § 54-5217(2). Second, the Act contains a separate provision expressly denying unregistered contractors the right to place a lien. I.C. § 54-5208. [2] The Act contains no language limiting the circumstances under which these penalties apply. In view of the unambiguous language specifying the significant penalties imposed upon unregistered contractors, the issue to be resolved is not whether Chase is entitled to invoke the Act for its benefit, but whether Stonebrook complied with the Act's registration requirements.