Opinion ID: 1280738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: waiver of defense

Text: ATI asserts that because Simplot did not specify which code sections were applicable when raising the defense of the statute of limitations in their answer to the cross-claim, they therefore waived the defense. There are two problems with that argument. First, it is correct that Simplot did not specify which code sections they were relying on in their original answer. However, in the amended answer they corrected that deficiency. When a pleading is amended, it takes the place of the original pleading. W.L. Scott v. Madras Aerotech, 103 Idaho 736, 653 P.2d 791 (1982); Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of Idaho, 86 Idaho 485, 389 P.2d 224 (1964); Casady v. Scott, 40 Idaho 137, 237 P. 415 (1924); Andrews v. Moore, 14 Idaho 465, 94 P. 579 (1908). Secondly, ATI never raised this issue of waiver in the court below. It is not contained in their cross-claim or in their amended cross-claim. It is well settled that issues not raised below and presented for the first time on appeal will not be considered or reviewed. Sandpoint Convalescent v. Dept. of Health, 114 Idaho 281, 756 P.2d 398 (1988); Baldner v. Bennett's, 103 Idaho 458, 649 P.2d 1214 (1982). Therefore, Simplot's defense of the statute of limitations is valid.