Court Opinion

ID: 9851549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:14:55.338769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:37.072989
License: Public Domain

*23ADDENDUM
Upon Denial of Petition for Rehearing
Our lead opinion remands this case for a determination as to whether Spreader acted in a commercially reasonable manner by repairing the damaged vehicle instead of replacing it. In a petition for rehearing, Spreader now asserts that a remand is unnecessary because the issue of commercial reasonableness was laid to rest by the following interrogatory in the jury’s special verdict: “Question No. 4- What was the reasonable cost of necessary repairs to the plaintiff’s damaged property? Answer. $40,414.00.” Spreader urges that the jury could not have answered this question without concluding that it was commercially reasonable to repair the vehicle. Although Spreader’s argument has a semantic appeal, it misperceives the issue.
A determination of commercial reasonableness does not turn narrowly upon what repairs were “necessary” or upon whether such “necessary” repair were made at a “reasonable cost.” Rather, the issue turns more broadly upon the choice between the replacement option (which ultimately leads to recovering the difference in the vehicle’s value before and immediately after the accident, plus damages for loss of use) and the repair option (which ultimately leads to recovering the reasonable cost of necessary repairs, including interest if borrowing is reasonably necessary, plus the diminution of value after repairs and damages for loss of use). Where income-producing property is injured, a decision to repair it rather than to replace it may be commercially reasonable —even if the repair is relatively costly — if it appears that the repair will be achieved with greater assurance and promptness than the replacement, thereby avoiding or minimizing potential damages for loss of use. In such a case, as we said in our lead opinion, the plaintiff may recover under the repair option if he has undertaken the repairs “with the genuine aim of mitigating business losses.” 114 Idaho at 21, 752 P.2d at 623.
In our view, the jury’s interrogatory verdict did not fully address the issue of commercial reasonableness as we have framed it. Neither did the district judge independently resolve the issue. Accordingly, we adhere to our decision remanding the case.
. WALTERS, C.J., and SWANSTROM, J., concur.