Westco Agronomy Co. v. Wollesen, 909 N.W.2d 212

West Central Cooperative (Westco) and subsidiary Westco Agronomy sold seed, fertilizer, and chemicals; salesman Chad Hartzler covertly gave large customer the Wollesens steep discounts and accepted payments from them; Hartzler later admitted wrongdoing and pled guilty to federal wire fraud.
Westco sued Hartzler and the Wollesens for bribery, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Iowa's Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act (chapter 706A); the Wollesens counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of §706A.2(1)(a) and §706A.2(5).
At summary judgment the district court struck §706A.2(5) as unconstitutional under Hensler and dismissed the Wollesens’ negligent-empowerment counterclaim; the court of appeals reinstated that counterclaim and the case proceeded to a jury trial on remaining claims.
Jury found Westco liable for breach of fiduciary duty and ongoing unlawful conduct against Hartzler (awarding Westco damages against Hartzler), but found the Wollesens did not engage in ongoing unlawful conduct; jury awarded the Wollesens damages on breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation against Westco.
Westco appealed three issues to the Iowa Supreme Court: constitutionality of §706A.2(5) (burden-shifting), whether verdicts were inconsistent (new-trial motion), and whether equitable issues should have been tried first.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of §706A.2(5) burden-shifting	Wollesens: statute valid; defendant must prove lack of negligence once plaintiff shows facilitation	Westco: burden-shifting creates unconstitutional presumption of negligence violating due process	Court: §706A.2(5) as written impermissibly shifts burden and violates due process, but the burden-shifting clause is severable; remand for further proceedings without that provision
Severability of §706A.2(5)(b)(4)	Wollesens: entire provision valid or severable	Westco/district court: provision inseparable so statute must be invalidated in full	Held severable: core negligent-empowerment cause remains; plaintiff must now prove defendant negligence
Inconsistent verdicts (motion for new trial)	Westco: verdict that Hartzler engaged in unlawful conduct but Wollesens did not is inconsistent; requires new trial	Wollesens: Instruction No.29 (in pari delicto / equally culpable defense) allows reconciliation	No error: verdicts can be harmonized by Instruction No.29; denial of new trial affirmed
Trial sequence — equity issues tried first	Westco: equitable remedies (rescission/restitution) should be tried in equity before jury	Wollesens: action was primarily at law (money damages); jury trial appropriate first	No abuse of discretion: case predominantly legal; district court properly tried the jury issues first

Hensler v. City of Davenport, 790 N.W.2d 569 (Iowa 2010) (invalidated a statutory rebuttable presumption re: parental control as arbitrary under due process)
City of Sioux City v. Jacobsma, 862 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2015) (upheld a presumption in an automated traffic-enforcement ordinance and distinguished Hensler)
Calkins v. Adams Cty. Coop. Elec. Co., 144 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 1966) (recognized unconstitutional presumption of negligence from mere occurrence)
State v. Olsen, 618 N.W.2d 346 (Iowa 2000) (discussed breadth of Iowa’s chapter 706A compared to the model act)
Morningstar v. Myers, 255 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 1977) (discussed preserving jury trial rights and sequencing equity vs. law issues)