Polar Insulation, Inc. v. Garling Construction, Inc. and Douglas Demeulenaere, 15-1501

Background

Polar Insulation (subcontractor) entered three subcontracts with Garling Construction (general contractor) from 2008–2009; disputes arose over payments, deductions, supplier payments, work performed, and jobsite safety.
Polar sued Garling and Garling’s president Douglas DeMeulenaere asserting breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, fraudulent misrepresentation, punitive damages, consequential damages, and attorney fees; many claims were resolved on summary judgment before trial.
The district court granted summary judgment dismissing claims for intentional interference, fraudulent misrepresentation, punitive damages, and attorney fees (against both Garling and DeMeulenaere), and later granted summary judgment that Polar had waived consequential damages under the subcontract clause.
Polar proceeded to jury trial on the remaining breach-of-contract claim against Garling; the jury returned a verdict for Garling.
Polar moved for a new trial arguing the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence and did not effectuate substantial justice; the district court denied the motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it upheld the summary-judgment rulings and the denial of a new trial, concluding there was no evidentiary support for the tort claims or punitive damages, the consequential-damages waiver was clear, and the jury’s breach verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Intentional interference with contracts	Polar: DeMeulenaere/ Garling contacted Polar's suppliers and promised payment, improperly interfering	Garling/DeMeulenaere: contacts were to protect their financial interests and avoid mechanic's-lien/claims; Polar offered no evidence of improper intent	Summary judgment for defendants; no factual support of improper interference
Fraudulent misrepresentation	Polar: defendants misrepresented payment/deduction amounts intending to deceive	Defendants: Polar had access to invoices and no evidence of intent to deceive; disputes are contractual	Summary judgment for defendants; no evidence of scienter/intent to deceive
Punitive damages	Polar: defendants acted with willful and wanton disregard supporting punitive damages	Defendants: no intentional tort or malicious breach; punitive damages unavailable for ordinary breach	Summary judgment for defendants; punitive damages not supported
Attorney fees (chapter 573)	Polar: seeks fees under chapter 573 as a claimant for labor/materials	Garling: Polar did not prevail or establish a claim entitling fees	Summary judgment for defendants; Polar not prevailing claimant under §573.21
Consequential damages waiver	Polar: contracts did not validly waive consequential damages	Garling: subcontract §14.2 plainly waives lost profits/consequential damages	Summary judgment for Garling; contractual waiver enforceable
Motion for new trial (sufficiency/substantial justice)	Polar: jury verdict contradicted undisputed trial evidence; insufficient support	Garling: jury weighed evidence and credibility; verdict permissible	Denial affirmed; sufficient evidence supported verdict and substantial justice was served

Key Cases Cited

Green v. Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa, 713 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 2006) (elements of intentional interference with a contract)
Van Sickle Constr. Co. v. Wachovia Commercial Mortg., Inc., 783 N.W.2d 684 (Iowa 2010) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation require scienter/intent)
Hockenberg Equip. Co. v. Hockenberg’s Equip. & Supply Co. of Des Moines, Inc., 510 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 1993) (punitive damages require willful and wanton or malicious tort)
Shinrone, Inc. v. Tasco, Inc., 283 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 1979) (contractual limitation of consequential damages is enforceable in appropriate contexts)
Gibson v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 388 (Iowa 2001) (discussing interference tort standards)