Robert W. Milas, M.D. v. Society Insurance and Angela Bonlander, 16-2148

Patient Rickey Fitzgerald obtained alternate care with Dr. Robert Milas after a work injury; Milas recommended elective cervical fusion and submitted a fee estimate of $14,325.87 to Society Insurance.
Society Insurance claims adjuster Angela Bonlander signed the fee estimate; the estimate stated the representative’s signature would authorize surgery.
Milas performed the surgery, billed $14,325.87, and Society Insurance paid substantially less after review by a third-party auditor (HSI); Milas rejected partial payments and sued.
Milas asserted negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of contract; summary judgment dismissed the misrepresentation claims; jury found a contract with Society Insurance, breach, and awarded $14,325.87.
Milas appealed, arguing (1) erroneous dismissal of fraudulent misrepresentation, (2) erroneous refusal to submit punitive damages to the jury, and (3) denial of his recusal motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraudulent misrepresentation survived summary judgment	Milas: Bonlander’s signed authorization falsely represented Society would pay full fees while she intended to negotiate later (scienter/intent)	Society: No evidence of false statement, actual knowledge, or reckless disregard; signature did not prove intent to deceive	Affirmed dismissal — no triable evidence of scienter or intent to deceive
Whether punitive damages instruction was required	Milas: Breach and defendants’ conduct justified punitive damages for willful, wanton, malicious breach	Society: Fee review and negotiation do not amount to intentional tort or legal malice	Affirmed refusal — insufficient substantial evidence of willful/wanton conduct or independent tort
Whether judge abused discretion in denying recusal	Milas: Ex parte communication, unfavorable demeanor, and alleged evidentiary error showed bias	Society: Ex parte contact was permissible and disclosed; alleged tone or evidentiary rulings do not demonstrate actual prejudice	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; allegations speculative and routine procedures followed
Whether negligent misrepresentation claim should proceed	Milas: Asserted misrepresentation claims based on authorization and later fee negotiation	Society: Not in business of supplying information; no claim-supported duties; summary judgment proper	Implicitly affirmed dismissal on summary judgment (district court granted)

Boelman v. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co., 826 N.W.2d 494 (Iowa 2013) (summary judgment standard review)
Weddum v. Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 750 N.W.2d 114 (Iowa 2008) (materiality of factual disputes)
Huck v. Wyeth, Inc., 850 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 2014) (genuine issue of fact standard)
Air Host Cedar Rapids, Inc. v. Cedar Rapids Airport Comm’n, 464 N.W.2d 450 (Iowa 1990) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation)
Van Sickle Constr. Co. v. Wachovia Comm. Mortg., Inc., 783 N.W.2d 684 (Iowa 2010) (scienter and reckless disregard analysis)
Magnusson Agency v. Pub. Entity Nat’l Co-Midwest, 560 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 1997) (punitive damages in contract actions require intentional tort and malice)
State v. Millsap, 704 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 2005) (standard for overturning recusal decisions)
Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191 (Iowa 2002) (actual prejudice required before recusal)