Eric Peterson, Annette L. Peterson and Michael Peterson v. Michael Oliver and Oliver Gravett, 24-0221

The Petersons hired attorney Oliver to pursue damages for injuries Eric Peterson suffered in a 2016 car accident; Oliver successfully settled with the other driver’s insurer but missed the statute of limitations for suing their own UIM carrier.
The Petersons sued Oliver for legal malpractice, arguing his negligence prevented them from recovering under their UIM policy.
To prove damages, the Petersons sought to call Dr. Bansal, an occupational health expert, to testify about Eric’s injuries.
The Petersons failed to disclose Dr. Bansal as an expert within the required timelines; the district court excluded his testimony and expert report.
The jury eventually returned a zero-dollar verdict for the Petersons after offsets, prompting them to move for a new trial, which was denied.
On appeal, the Petersons only challenged the exclusion of their expert and denial of their new trial motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of expert testimony	Failure to disclose was harmless since defendant knew about Dr. Bansal and his report was provided.	Late disclosure prevented Oliver from rebutting with his own expert.	No abuse of discretion in exclusion; not harmless.
Denial of motion for new trial	Exclusion was in error and prejudiced their case on damages.	Court properly excluded expert; no grounds for new trial.	No abuse of discretion in denying new trial.

Quad City Bank & Tr. v. Elderkin & Pirnie, P.L.C., 870 N.W.2d 249 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (explains "case within a case" standard in legal malpractice)
Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Sols., LLC, 897 N.W.2d 553 (Iowa 2017) (appellate standard of review for exclusion of expert testimony)
Fly v. Blauvelt, 818 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 2012) (standard for review of new trial denial involving discretion)