Meaningful Review Revisited: Idaho Supreme Court Narrows “Plan-or-Design Immunity” to Government Plans & Change Orders that Receive Actual, Documented Scrutiny
South Hill Meat Lockers Inc. v. Idaho Transportation Department, 176 Idaho ___ (2025)

Introduction

U.S. Highway 95 snakes through Bonners Ferry, Idaho, skirting the modest meat-processing facility of South Hill Meat Lockers (“South Hill”). When the Idaho Transportation Department (“ITD”) launched a 1.3-mile widening project in 2019, heavy machinery, vibrations and a hastily-relocated natural-gas line allegedly cracked South Hill’s 70-year-old building. What began as routine roadworks spiralled into multipart litigation pitting South Hill’s seven-count tort complaint against ITD’s principal shield—the “plan or design immunity” codified in Idaho Code § 6-904(7) of the Idaho Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”).

After a procedural odyssey featuring two different district judges, two summary-judgment rounds, late discovery, and a proposed bifurcated jury trial, the Idaho Supreme Court issued this landmark decision. The Court:

• Clarifies that “meaningful review” of a plan does not stop at the initial drawings—material change orders and utility relocations must also undergo meaningful review for immunity to attach;
• Confirms that statutory nuisance damages survive even after the nuisance abates;
• Holds that Idaho Code § 55-310 (lateral support) sounds in negligence, not strict liability;
• Affirms that independent contractors’ negligence is not imputed to ITD absent agency;
• Upholds a trial court’s discretion to bifurcate trials to decide immunity first.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court vacated the final judgment that had dismissed all of South Hill’s claims, affirmed in part and reversed in part the underlying summary-judgment rulings, and remanded for trial (or further dispositive motion practice) on issues where material facts remain. Key holdings include:

• Plan or Design Immunity: ITD failed to show, as a matter of law, that the gas-line relocation and 33 construction change orders received “meaningful review.” Therefore, immunity could not be granted on summary judgment.
• Independent-Contractor Defense: The record supports the conclusion that general contractor Goodfellow Brothers, utility Avista, and subcontractor KG&T were independent contractors, not ITD agents, but that fact alone does not defeat liability if the damage arose from ITD’s own negligent plan.
• Nuisance: Because South Hill seeks damages (not only abatement), its nuisance claim survives notwithstanding cessation of construction.
• Lateral Support (§ 55-310): The statute imposes a negligence—not strict-liability—standard; the claim is therefore subject to ITCA immunity analysis.
• Trespass (§ 6-202): Likewise treated as a tort claim subject to ITCA exceptions.
• Bifurcation: No abuse of discretion in ordering a phased trial on immunity before the merits.
• Attorney Fees: None awarded; neither party wholly prevailed.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• Lawton v. City of Pocatello, 126 Idaho 454 (1994). Established the two alternative routes to immunity under § 6-904(7): (1) substantial conformance with standards, or (2) approval in advance by the proper body.
• Grabicki ex rel. Thompson v. City of Lewiston, 154 Idaho 686 (2013). Introduced the phrase “meaningful review” for the approved-in-advance path. South Hill extends Grabicki by importing that requirement to material change orders occurring mid-project.
• Woodworth v. Idaho Transportation Board, 154 Idaho 362 (2013). Confirmed that design immunity is broad but yields when the plaintiff cites a specific statute violated. The Court distinguished Woodworth but reiterated that § 55-310 and § 6-202 claims must still pass ITCA analysis.
• Brown v. City of Pocatello, 148 Idaho 802 (2010) & Forbush v. Sagecrest, 162 Idaho 317 (2017). Articulated agency vs. independent-contractor principles—used here to absolve ITD of vicarious liability for Goodfellow Brothers and Avista.
• Spirit Ridge Mineral Springs v. Franklin County, 157 Idaho 424 (2014). Discussed “persistence” requirement for nuisance; Court distinguishes it because South Hill seeks damages, not abatement.

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Admissibility of Late Declarations – Applying Ciccarello and Summerfield, the Court upheld Judge Berecz’s discretion to consider ITD’s declarations served after the original discovery cutoff.
2. Delegation of Approval Authority – ITD Policies 4001 & 5001 and the Roadway Design Manual validly delegate plan-approval power from the Board to district engineers; hence Hawkins’s signature could satisfy § 6-904(7).
3. “Meaningful Review” of Change Orders – Even with valid delegation, immunity fails if subsequent material alterations (e.g., trench 18″ from South Hill’s footing, 33 change orders) lacked review equivalent to the original plan. The Court rejects “rubber-stamp” immunity for mid-project deviations.
4. Nuisance After Abatement – Idaho Code § 52-111 expressly allows damages claims notwithstanding cessation; lower court erred by demanding ongoing nuisance.
5. Lateral Support & Trespass Under ITA – Because both causes rely on negligent conduct, they remain within the ITCA’s framework and potential immunities.
6. Bifurcation – Rule 42(b) authorises separation of “issues”; an affirmative defense like statutory immunity qualifies and promotes judicial economy.

C. Impact on Future Litigation & Public-Works Law

• Expanded “Meaningful Review” Doctrine. Agencies now must document not only initial plan approval but also scrutiny of significant change orders and utility relocations. Expect heavier paper-trails, inter-departmental sign-offs, and perhaps technology solutions (e-CMS) to prove review.
• Contract Administration. General contractors may see tighter review of requests for information (RFIs) and change orders; failure to channel them through the owner’s formal review could void immunity downstream.
• Utility Coordination. Utility companies relocating lines inside DOT projects will likely face written formalities to ensure the relocation plans join the “approved” plan set.
• Litigation Strategy. Plaintiffs can now target post-bid modifications as chinks in the immunity armor. Conversely, agencies will front-load motions for summary judgment with a change-order dossier.
• Clarification on Nuisance Damages. Nuisance-abated cases may still yield monetary awards, widening exposure for temporary construction disturbances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) – State statute waiving sovereign immunity except for specific carve-outs (§ 6-904). Plaintiffs must both state a tort claim and show no exception applies.
• Plan or Design Immunity (§ 6-904(7)) – Shields governments from liability when damage “arises out of” a highway plan/design that is (a) drawn to accepted standards or (b) approved in advance by competent authority.
• Meaningful Review – The approving body must actually examine the plan. South Hill extends this to substantive change orders.
• Independent Contractor vs. Agent – If the hiring entity controls only results not methods, the contractor’s negligence is usually not imputed to the principal.
• Lateral Support (§ 55-310) – Right of land to be supported by neighboring soil. For buildings (artificial additions), violation triggers a negligence—not strict liability—claim.
• Bifurcation (IRCP 42(b)) – Court may split trial to first decide a discrete issue (e.g., immunity) to save time and resources.

Conclusion

South Hill Meat Lockers refines Idaho public-works tort law in two pivotal ways: (1) it demands documented, “meaningful” vetting of all material components of a government construction project—initial plans and subsequent change orders—before plan-or-design immunity attaches; and (2) it re-balances nuisance and lateral-support doctrines within the ITCA landscape. Agencies must now anticipate judicial scrutiny not merely of their blueprint approvals but of every significant field alteration. Contractors, utilities, and government lawyers alike should recalibrate risk assessments, project documentation, and litigation strategies in light of this expanded “meaningful review” requirement. The decision leaves open factual questions for trial yet supplies a durable roadmap for future infrastructure projects across Idaho.