Charles Furnald v. Anthony Hughes and Emcasco Insurance Company
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 79
Iowa2011Background
- Furnald filed a personal injury action and an UM/UIM claim against EMCASCO in Iowa.
- Trial was set for April 14, 2009; Furnald voluntarily dismissed the action on April 3, 2009, 11 days before trial without seeking a continuance or consulting opposing counsel.
- Furnald subsequently refiled the action on June 29, 2009; Hughes moved for summary judgment asserting the savings statute did not apply.
- District court granted summary judgment for Hughes; court of appeals affirmed the ruling.
- The central issue is whether the voluntary dismissal falls within Iowa’s savings statute, which extends the statute of limitations six months if the action fails for reasons other than negligence in prosecution.
- The Iowa Supreme Court affirms, holding that the voluntary dismissal did not satisfy the savings statute under Archer–Pardey–Ceprley framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary dismissal qualifies as a 'failure' under the savings statute | Furnald argues dismissal was to develop damages and was compelled by evolving medical evidence | Hughes contends dismissal was voluntary and negligent, not a 'failure' covered by 614.10 | No; Archer–Pardey–Ceprley compulsion requirement applies, dismissal not within savings statute |
| Whether the Archer–Pardey–Ceprley compulsion standard remains governing law | Furnald could rely on evolving medical evidence to justify dismissal without a continuance | Hughes maintains the compulsion standard remains intact and not satisfied here | Remains in force; the court will not abandon it |
| Whether liberal construction of savings statutes would override Iowa precedent | Furnald urges liberal construction to allow savings statute relief | Hughes argues liberal construction cannot rewrite statutory terms | Liberal construction rejected as overriding established precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Archer v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry., 65 Iowa 611 (1885) (voluntary dismissal may not qualify under savings statute unless compelled)
- Pardey v. Town of Mechanicsville, 112 Iowa 68 (1900) (failure to seek continuance renders dismissal negligent under savings statute)
- Ceprley v. Town of Paton, Inc., 120 Iowa 559 (1903) (diligence to seek continuance required when dismissal is used)
- Weisz v. Moore, 222 Iowa 492 (1936) (savings statute applied where absence of undue delay or compulsion to dismiss)
- Tull v. Honda Research & Development, Ltd., 469 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1991) (venue issues and dismissals involving multiple defendants may still invoke savings statute)
- Klingensmith v. Central Construction Co., 256 Iowa 364 (1964) (compulsion requirement in savings statute interpretation)
- Wilson v. Wright, 189 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 1971) (voluntary dismissal on procedural grounds may affect negligence determination)