Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involved three small school districts, Northeast Community School District, East Central Community School District, and Preston Community School District. In 2010, the school boards of Northeast and East Central entered into a whole grade sharing agreement. Thereafter, citizens from Preston and East Central voted to reorganize their districts and merge the districts together into a new school district called Easton Valley Community School District (Easton). The Easton school board subsequently sent a notification of cancellation of the agreement to the superintendent of Northeast, claiming that when East Central ceased to exist the agreement was null. Northeast filed a petition for declaratory action and mandamus and then amended its petition alleging repudiation of the agreement. The district court granted summary judgment for Easton, concluding (1) the agreement and the reorganization were valid but that the two were in direct conflict, and (2) the East Central school board did not have the ability to bind Easton as its successor corporation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agreement could bind the reorganized school district. View "Northeast Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Easton Valley Cmty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a limited liability company, contracted with Defendant, a utility bill review consultant. After Defendant reviewed four utility bills and informed Plaintiff it was entitled to a substantial refund for sales tax overpayments, Plaintiff terminated the contract. Plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory judgment requesting a determination that it had no remaining contractual obligation to Defendant. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff, concluding that Plaintiff’s liability under the contract was limited to services Defendant provided prior to termination, and no payment was owed to Defendant until Plaintiff actually received a refund. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant had a viable claim for breach of contract. Remanded. View "Shelby County Cookers, LLC v. Utility Consultants Int’l, Inc." on Justia Law

Tenant leased certain property from Landlord. Landlord filed a petition for a declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that it could have reasonable access to the property to show it to prospective buyers. The district court found the lease to be unambiguous and granted summary judgment to Tenant, concluding that Tenant could exclude Landlord from showing the property until ninety days remained in the term of the lease. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court, holding that lease provisions that gave Landlord the right to sell the property at any time during the lease term encompassed the right to access the property temporarily at reasonable times to show the property to prospective buyers. View "Alta Vista Props., LLC vs. Mauer Vision Ctr., PC" on Justia Law

In 1991, Husband and Wife were married in Florida. Later that year, the couple signed a postnuptial agreement expressly providing that Florida law would apply. The agreement contained a provision stating that Wife waived all claims against Husband’s estate upon his death, including her elective share. In 2005, the couple moved to Iowa. After Husband died in 2012, Wife claimed her spousal elective share under Iowa law. The agreement was enforceable under Florida law, but Wife argued that the agreement could not be enforced in Iowa because it would violate Iowa’s public policy against postnuptial agreements waiving a spouse’s elective share. The district court denied relief based on the choice of law provision in the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Florida law applied to the enforceability of Wife’s waiver of her spousal elective share contained in the agreement. View "Hussemann v. Hussemann " on Justia Law

John Corrado and his company (collectively, Corrado) and Life Investors Insurance Company of America (LICA) entered into a settlement agreement following a dispute. The agreement purported to bear Corrado's signature, but Corrado challenged the signatures' validity. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment to LICA, concluding that Corrado ratified the parties' contract. The U.S. court of appeals reversed. On remand, the district court found the settlement agreement authenticated. The Iowa Supreme Court answered a certified question of law by holding that if a party receives a copy of an executed contract with that party's signature thereon, even where it is not known who applied the party's signature to the contract or whether the signature was authorized, and the party does not challenge the signature or otherwise object to the contract and accepts benefits and obligations under the contract for at least six years, then the party has ratified the contract and is therefore bound by its terms. View "Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am. v. Estate of Corrado" on Justia Law

Dennis Hagenow was injured in an automobile accident with Betty Schmidt. Hagenow and his wife (Plaintiffs) filed an uninsured motorist claim with American Family Mutual Insurance Company. American Family denied the claim, determining that Schmidt’s vehicle was not an uninsured motor vehicle under Plaintiffs’ policy. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a breach of contract action against American Family. American Family moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) because Schmidt had automobile insurance at the time of the collision, she was not an uninsured motorist (UM) under the policy; and (2) Plaintiffs were not “legally entitled to recover” under the policy because a jury in Plaintiffs’ underlying action against Schmidt found Schmidt not liable for Plaintiffs’ damages. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs were not “legally entitled to recover” under Iowa law or their UM policy; and (2) Schmidt’s vehicle was not an uninsured motor vehicle under the terms of Plaintiffs’ UM provision. Remanded. View "Hagenow v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a passenger who was injured while riding in the vehicle of his brother, who had coverage, including underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, with Defendant. The policy contained a provision limiting the time to file an action to recover UIM benefits. Plaintiff brought this action to recover UIM benefits approximately one month after the deadline set forth in the policy. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming Plaintiff’s petition was untimely because he failed to file it within the policy’s two-year deadline. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff, as an insured and a third-party beneficiary of the policy, did not have greater rights than the policyholder, and therefore, Plaintiff could not avoid the contractual time limitation unless the policyholder under similar circumstances would have been able to avoid it; and (2) the record did not demonstrate either that the policy’s time limit was unreasonable or that Defendant should be equitably estopped from enforcing it. Remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant. View "Osmic v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff formed a contract with Imperial Premium Finance with regard to a financing arrangement for life insurance. Imperial later assigned its interest in the arrangement to Defendant, a limited partnership with its principal place of business in California. Plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory judgment in Iowa, claiming that the contract was not valid. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that that contacts of Imperial, the assignor, did not impute to Defendant, the assignee. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an assignor’s contacts with Iowa are not automatically imputed to the assignee for purposes of obtaining personal jurisdiction over the assignee, but this assignee is subject to personal jurisdiction in Iowa based on its own contacts with this forum through the contractual relationships it assumed by the assignment; and (2) Defendant in this case did have the required minimum contacts to subject Defendant to personal jurisdiction in Iowa. Remanded. View "Ostrem v. PrideCo Secure Loan Fund, LP" on Justia Law

Lender loaned Borrowers $52,000 pursuant to a loan agreement (agreement) and promissory note ( note). After Borrowers stopped making payments on the loan, Lender filed a petition to collect the total principal due on the agreement and note. The trial judge determined (1) Lender did not meet its burden to prove a breach of contract on the agreement and note because it did not show evidence of the terms of the agreement and repayment schedule, and (2) even if there was an enforceable contract, Lender failed to prove damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record established as a matter of law that Lender proved the existence of a contract based upon the agreement and note; and (2) the district court applied the wrong burden of proof to determine a breach and the amount of damages owed, if any, on the agreement and note. Remanded. View "Iowa Mortgage Ctr., LLC v. Baccam" on Justia Law

A husband and wife applied for life insurance policies from Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company and later sued Farm Bureau for its alleged negligence in failing to notify them of their HIV-positive status. Farm Bureau settled the negligence claims, sued its insurers for indemnity, and sued its insurance broker for breach of contract and negligence in failing to provide timely notice to the insurers. The district court granted summary judgment (1) in favor of the insurers on the ground that Farm Bureau had failed to give them timely notice of the applicants' liability claims, and (2) in favor of the broker after concluding that even if the insurers had been given timely notice of the applicants' tort claims against Farm Bureau, coverage for those claims would have been precluded under two separate exclusions. In this appeal, Farm Bureau challenged the judgment in favor of the broker. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the underwriting exclusion would have precluded coverage for the applicants' claims even if the insurers had been timely notified under the policy's notice requirement. View "Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Holmes Murphy & Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law