Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether a trial court's entry of a default judgment under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.971(3) is justified when a party fails to appear personally for trial, but the party's attorney is present and able to proceed in the client's absence. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's entry of default judgment due to Plaintiff's failure to appear personally at the time of his scheduled trial. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the judgment of the district court, holding that because Rule 1.971(3) does not require a party to appear personally for trial, it was an abuse of discretion to enter a default judgment against Plaintiff when his counsel was present and able to proceed to trial on his behalf. View "Jack v. P & A Farms, Ltd." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to review a summary judgment ruling dismissing a wrongful death action because it was commenced later than is allowed under Iowa Code 614.1(9), a statute of repose limiting the time allowed for commencing medical negligence cases. Plaintiffs contended their case should not have been dismissed because Defendants fraudulently concealed the fact that a tissue specimen harvested from Plaintiffs' decedent more than six years before the filing of this action was not evaluated by a board-certified pathologist. In the alternative, Plaintiff contended the continuum-of-negligent-treatment doctrine precluded the summary dismissal of this case notwithstanding the statute of repose. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 614.1(9) in this case operated to extinguish the decedent's cause of action even before she and her husband knew it had accrued; and (2) under the the circumstances, the fraudulent-concealment doctrine and the continuum-of-negligent-treatment doctrine did not preserve Plaintiffs' causes of action, and section 614.1(9) denied Plaintiffs a remedy for negligent acts or omissions occurring more than six years prior to the commencement of this action.

In this case the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether Iowa's workers' compensation statute allows a claimant to recover healing period benefits - after he had reached maximum medical improvement and returned to substantially similar work following a work-related injury - for a period of approximately thirteen weeks of postsurgical convalescence during which he was unable to work. The workers' compensation commission awarded such benefits, and the district court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed on the ground that Iowa Code 85.34(1) did not authorize the benefits under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the award, holding that section 85.34(1) did authorize an award of healing period benefits in this case.

At issue in this appeal was whether to judicially invalidate an insurance contract requirement that the insured file her lawsuit for underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) within two years of her auto accident. Plaintiff argued the deadline was unenforceable because, although she was still experiencing pain two years after the accident, only later did she discover the full extent of her injuries and realize her claim exceeded the other driver's liability limits. Plaintiff filed this UIM action against her insurer (Defendant) nearly six years after the accident. The district court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment enforcing the contractual deadline as reasonable. The court of appeals reversed, holding the two-year limitation period was unreasonable under the circumstances. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that the two-year UIM insurance policy deadline was enforceable as a matter of law because it matched the two-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code 614.1(2) for personal injury actions.

This case presented a battle between banks over the proceeds of the sale of cattle by a financially strapped borrower who had financial dealings with both banks. When Security Savings Bank (Security) obtained the proceeds of the sale, Peoples Trust and Savings Bank (Peoples) claimed a security interest in the proceeds and sued for conversion. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Peoples. After Security appealed, Peoples commenced garnishment proceedings against Security to enforce its judgment, and Security paid the underlying judgment. The court of appeals then determined that Security had waived its right to appeal and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a defendant faced with post-judgment garnishment does not waive a pending appeal by paying the judgment in order to avoid further enforcement proceedings; and (2) the district court correctly determined that Peoples had a security interest in the proceeds superior to Security's interest and that Peoples did not waive its superior position through its course of conduct.

In this real estate dispute, some of the defendants filed a motion for sanctions, alleging Defendant brought the action to harass, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The district court ordered sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel for $1,000. The court of appeals affirmed the sanctions, ordering them payable to the jury and witness fund. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the court of appeals, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in fixing the amount of the sanction at $1,000; (2) the court abused its discretion by ordering the sanction be paid to the jury and witness fund; and (3) given Rule 1.413(1)'s preference of compensating victims, the district court should enter an order requiring Plaintiff's counsel to pay the sanction in equal sums to the defendants who sought the sanction as partial reimbursement of the legal fees they incurred in defending against the unfounded claims brought against them. Remanded.

After the State filed a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition, the juvenile court issued a temporary removal order removing Child from Mother's custody and placing her in foster care. Once the CINA proceeding was dismissed, Mother sued the State and two employees of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA), alleging the DHS social workers wrongfully removed Child from her custody and negligently failed to protect Child from abuse. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a social worker is entitled to absolute immunity when the social worker functions in the role of a prosecutor or ordinary witness; (2) a social worker is entitled to qualified immunity when acting in the role of a complaining witness, and for his or her investigatory acts; (3) alleged injured parties cannot maintain an action against a social worker under the ITCA where the alleged parties fail to exhaust the available administrative remedy prior to filing an action in court and where the basis of the complaint is that the social worker engaged in conduct functionally equivalent to misrepresentation or deceit.

Defendant, an alleged embezzler, entered an Alford plea to first-degree theft and entered a deferred judgment on that charge. The subrogated insurer (EMCC) of Defendant's employer brought a civil action against Defendant to recover $66,749 it paid on the theft loss. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of EMCC in that amount, concluding that Defendant's Alford plea precluded her from denying the theft or the amount. Defendant appealed, contending her deferred judgment should have no res judicata effect in the civil case. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment establishing Defendant's liability to EMCC for damages of $10,000 based on issue preclusion and reversed the summary judgment in excess of $10,000, holding (1) the victim of a crime or the victim's subrogated insurer may invoke the doctrine of issue preclusion in a civil action based on the defendant's Alford plea regardless of whether the defendant successfully complies with the conditions for the deferred judgment on the criminal charge; but (2) the preclusive effect of Defendant's Alford plea is limited to $10,000, the minimum amount required to support a charge of first-degree theft, and genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in excess of $10,000.

This case presented the question of whether an individual who made voluntary expenditures based on a mother's fraudulent representation that the individual had fathered her child has a cause of action against the mother for recovery of those payments. The district court granted the mother's motion to dismiss the action. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that such a cause of action may be pursued because it is consistent with traditional concepts of common law fraud, there is no prevailing public policy reason against recognizing such a cause of action, and Iowa's statutes do not speak to the issue. Remanded.

At issue in this case was whether a subcontractor that properly performs electrical work on a jobsite, then locks up the work and transfers control to the property owner, owes a duty of care to an employee of the owner electrocuted six days later when the owner fails to deenergize the work site in contravention of various warnings and regulations. The district court granted summary judgment to the subcontractor, holding that the subcontractor owed no duty to the employee because it did not have control of the switchgear box when the employee was injured. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that, under the circumstances, the subcontractor owed no duty of care to the employee.