Sharece Rucker v. Mike Taylor and Sherie Taylor
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 27
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Rucker was injured in an auto accident with the Taylors on January 15, 2009; she employed attorney Field to pursue a claim.
- Field engaged in settlement negotiations with the Taylors’ insurer, exchanging information from April 3, 2009, to December 8, 2010.
- Field sent a December 22, 2010 letter indicating the petition would be filed but service would be delayed while negotiations continued.
- Rucker filed the petition on December 29, 2010 but took no action to serve within 90 days as required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.302(5).
- After negotiations continued into 2011, service was finally effected on April 13–15, 2011; the Taylors moved to dismiss for untimely service.
- The district court held good cause existed to excuse the delay and denied dismissal; the court of appeals and then the supreme court affirmed, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause existed to excuse untimely service under Rule 1.302(5). | Rucker argues continued negotiations and insurer conduct justify good cause. | Taylors argue no enforceable agreement or misled conduct justifies delay. | Yes; good cause existed. |
| Whether an implied contract to delay service was formed by conduct. | Rucker contends implied agreement to delay service formed by conduct. | Taylors contend no implied agreement was formed. | No implied contract existed to delay service. |
| Whether estoppel or other conduct by the insurer supports delaying service. | Knowledge of delay plan by insurer and continued negotiations support estoppel. | Estoppel not established; delay should not be excused. | Estoppel supported delaying service under the circumstances; dismissal was inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Shober, 566 N.W.2d 190 (Iowa 1997) (settlement negotiations do not alone justify delay in service)
- Wilson v. Ribbens, 678 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 2004) (good-faith negotiations may support good cause when an implied or actual agreement to delay exists)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (good cause requires affirmative action or no fault by plaintiff; mere inadvertence not enough)
- Crall v. Davis, 714 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa 2006) (scope of review for dismissal motions and timing considerations)