Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following the death of Cletus Roth, a resident of a nursing facility operated by The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Roth’s estate and his adult children filed an action against Good Samaritan, alleging, inter alia, wrongful death, negligence, and loss of consortium. After removing the case to federal court, Good Samaritan moved to compel arbitration. The federal district court directed that the claims of Roth’s estate be submitted to arbitration but asked the Supreme Court to answer two certified questions of Iowa law relating to the adult children’s loss-of-consortium claims. The Supreme Court answered (1) Iowa Code 613.15 does not require that adult children’s loss-of-parental-consortium claims be arbitrated when the deceased parent’s estate’s claims are otherwise subject to arbitration; and (2) in light of the Court’s answer to the previous question, the second question has become moot. View "Roth v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society" on Justia Law

In the underlying action, Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Defendants, the State, and a volunteer driver for the Iowa Department of Human Services. The Supreme Court held that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment under the statute of limitations and the volunteer-immunity provisions of the Iowa Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff subsequently filed this malpractice action against her attorney (Attorney) in the underlying case. The jury returned a verdict finding Attorney was negligent and that his negligence caused damage to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal and reversed on cross-appeal, holding (1) the driver's volunteer immunity did not preclude the State's respondeat superior liability for Attorney's negligence, and therefore, Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim against Attorney did not fail because she could have recovered in the underlying case had the claim been timely filed; (2) Attorney could not reduce the malpractice-damage award by the contingent fee he would have taken if the underlying action had been successful because he did not earn the fee and because Plaintiff must pay new counsel who prosecuted the malpractice action; and (3) Plaintiff was entitled to interest running from the date by which her underlying action should have been tried, absent Attorney's negligence.View "Hook v. Trevino" on Justia Law

Defendant was the driver in an accident that resulted in the deaths of Mark Empen and Lindsay Gibbs. Defendant entered into civil settlement agreements with the estates of Empen and Gibbs. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to two counts of homicide by vehicle. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and ordered Defendant to pay restitution to the victims' families. Several years later, Defendant applied for an order stating he had satisfied his restitution obligation, arguing that the settlement amounts paid to the victims' estates should be set off against the restitution amounts he was ordered to pay the families. The district court denied the applications. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a setoff for the settlement payments made to each estate.View "State v. Driscoll" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants, county and municipal officials, alleging that he was wrongfully assaulted and arrested by certain law enforcement officers and deputies. The district court concluded that Defendants were entitled to immunity because they were acting on behalf of the state in an official capacity and that the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA) barred Plaintiff's claims for assault, battery, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that any immunity conferred by the ITCA did not protect Defendants from being sued under the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA), which applies to political subdivisions and their employees, and that the IMTCA does not bar claims for assault, battery, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. Remanded.View "Thomas v. Gavin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was terminated from his employment as dean of students and vice president of student services at the University of Iowa by the University's president, Sally Mason, after a report from the Stolar Partnership (Stolar), a law firm retained by the Board of Regents (Regents) to investigate the University's response to a sexual assault of a student athlete by other student athletes, came out highly critical of Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the University, Mason, the Regents, and Stolar for wrongful termination and related causes of action. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in denying Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery of written communications between Stolar and the Regents based on its finding that the attorney-client privilege protected the communications from disclosure; and (2) in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff's various claims.View "Jones v. Univ. of Iowa" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Klever Miranda and Nancy Campoverde, entered the U.S. without documentation. Klever received a notice of removal order and was represented by attorney Michael Said. Said advised Klever and Nancy to leave the country and then file a document called a Form I-601 waiver, which permits an applicant who is otherwise ineligible to be admitted into the U.S. based on extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. Said told Plaintiffs that once their son Cesar obtained citizenship, he would be a qualifying relative. However, once Plaintiffs left the country and filed the Form I-601, the applications were denied. Plaintiffs later learned that Cesar was not a qualifying relative. Plaintiffs and Cesar brought a legal malpractice action against Said, including a claim for emotional distress damages and punitive damages. The district court allowed only the claim for economic damages to be considered by the jury and found Said negligent. The court of appeals reversed, finding the claims for emotional distress and punitive damages should have been submitted to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court erred in concluding that emotional distress and punitive damages were not available to Plaintiffs. Remanded for a new trial.View "Miranda v. Said" on Justia Law