History
  • No items yet
midpage
888 N.W.2d 644
Iowa
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Dinsdale Construction built an addition; Lumber Specialties contracted to supply trusses and limited engineering services but not temporary-bracing engineering or midconstruction evaluation.
  • Lumber Specialties sales rep Ryan Callaway made a brief, gratuitous site visit at the request of Moeller & Walter and told the contractor "everything looked good" regarding temporary bracing; he later emailed a similar, informal assessment.
  • Nine days after Callaway’s visit the partially constructed roof collapsed due to inadequate temporary bracing that did not follow the industry plan; costs were incurred to rebuild.
  • Dinsdale sued Lumber Specialties for negligent misrepresentation (and breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary); a jury returned a verdict for Dinsdale on negligent misrepresentation but found no contract breach.
  • Lumber Specialties moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict arguing no duty existed because Callaway’s comments were a gratuitous courtesy, not part of a pecuniary informational transaction; the district court denied the motion, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Lumber Specialties owed a duty to use reasonable care in supplying Callaway's interim assessment Callaway’s statement was relied on and caused economic loss; a duty exists because Lumber Specialties supplies information as part of its business No duty: Callaway’s comments were a gratuitous, cursory opinion outside any paid or expected informational service or pecuniary transaction No duty; court reversed JNOV denial and vacated appellate decision
Whether Lumber Specialties is "in the business of supplying information" for §552 purposes Dinsdale: mixed business supplies engineering info; supplying any such info can create duty Lumber: mixed business but this specific act was not within its information-providing capacity or compensated/service-based transaction Being a mixed business is not dispositive; duty depends on the specific transaction and pecuniary interest, which was absent here
Whether indirect/attendant goodwill or promotional activity can create the necessary pecuniary interest Dinsdale: supplying the opinion as a courtesy advanced Lumber Specialties’ sales interests (indirect pecuniary benefit) Lumber: general goodwill and passing out pencils are too attenuated to establish pecuniary interest or regularity General goodwill and isolated promotional acts are too attenuated to create the pecuniary interest required for duty
Whether the issue of duty was properly for the jury or the court Dinsdale: factual question about Callaway’s role and expectations should go to jury Lumber: duty is a question of law for the court and no duty existed as a matter of law Duty is a question of law; court erred by submitting duty to jury and must grant JNOV

Key Cases Cited

  • Ryan v. Kanne, 170 N.W.2d 395 (Iowa 1969) (adopted Restatement approach recognizing negligent misrepresentation claim)
  • Meier v. Alfa-Laval, Inc., 454 N.W.2d 576 (Iowa 1990) (narrowed duty: retailers not generally subject to §552 duty)
  • Fry v. Mount, 554 N.W.2d 263 (Iowa 1996) (duty to supply accurate information normally limited to those in the business of supplying information)
  • Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 2001) (indirect pecuniary interest can support duty where provider is compensated as part of role)
  • Van Sickle Constr. Co. v. Wachovia Commercial Mortg., Inc., 783 N.W.2d 684 (Iowa 2010) (standard of review for JNOV; negligent misrepresentation not governed by economic loss rule)
  • Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (N.Y. 1931) (historic common-law limit on negligent misrepresentation liability contrasted with Restatement approach)
  • Nationwide Agribus. v. Structural Restoration, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (S.D. Iowa 2010) (gratuitous inspections held part of sales model—supporting an indirect pecuniary interest)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Dinsdale Construction, LLC v. Lumber Specialties, Ltd.
Court Name: Supreme Court of Iowa
Date Published: Dec 23, 2016
Citations: 888 N.W.2d 644; 2016 WL 7422352; 2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 115; 15–0164
Docket Number: 15–0164
Court Abbreviation: Iowa
Log In
    Dinsdale Construction, LLC v. Lumber Specialties, Ltd., 888 N.W.2d 644