*1 SERVICE, FLYING MOINES DES
INC., Appellee, INC.; Cedar SERVICES
AERIAL LLC; Aviation, Kirk
Valley Appellants. Fisher,
P. 14-0632.
No. of Iowa.
Supreme Court 3, 2016.
June *2 $19,323.63 Kate cost each B. Mitchell windshields R. Jr. John Walker Walker, Field, Morris, Beecher, Hoff- charge additional for labor. $6300 P.C., Waterloo, Johnson, appel- bill, 31, 2009, August man & entire dated included lants. many services totaled $69,655.58. No warranties or disclaimers Firm of Lawyer Law Ste-
Steven V. *3 were contained on the invoice. Associates, P.L.C., Lawyer West & ven V. Moines, appellee. Des for Replacement in aircraft are windshields part original limited number in the CADY, Justice. Chief type design approved or one a Parts under company chal- appeal, In this an aviation Authorization. Manufacturing The wind- statutory of a immu- lenges application the installed part shields DMFS were a claim of nity provision to its manufacturer, Air- specified by Piper warranty merchantability craft, (Piper), by and manufactured Inc. Commercial found in the Uniform Glass) Industries, (Pittsburgh Plate PPG (UCC) in arising from Inc. approved No other windshield was manufacturing. design or On our Manufacturing installation a Parts under review, whether the we must determine Authorization. in only applies immunity provision or if it to contracts. applies cases also We Piper an authorized DMFS is dealer immunity only in applies statutory hold the parts. provided warranty a Piper limited involving personal products liability cases parts.1 warranty The for six extended , not in damage, cases injury property or purchase part, months not to after loss. our solely on On based twenty-four from exceed months review, and part reverse we affirm part Piper Ac- shipped Factory. from appeals, the dis- part the court of reverse cording agreement to the dealer between remand. judgment, trict court and Piper, required DMFS DMFS and ask each customer read and acknowl- Background Proceed- I. Factual edge writing warranty policies ings. parts provided. 2009, 20, Avi- Valley Cedar February On from purchased DMFS windshields ation, subsidiary Aerial wholly a owned Piper. inspected Piper had the wind- Services, (ASI), brought Piper a Inc. they design shields to confirm met with II) (Cheyenne in for 522AS maintenance specifications sale. prior to DMFS did Service, (DMFS). Inc. Flying Des Moines copy provide Piper’s written ASI with cheeks re- Among numerous other warranty or otherwise inform ASI of pilot’s pairs, DMFS noted both period limited time covered warran- copilot’s were “delaminated” windshields ty for any parts DMFS installed. and installed new windshields. The re- original sometime be- installed windshields placed windshields were aircraft, old. thirty-three years February August The new tween Piper’s liability provisions excepted Piper warranty to re- from The limited incidental, pair replace any or fails general consequential, punitive defective during expressly It period. also including arising person- those gave provided capital Piper letters death, red damage, al or eco- (or merchantability implied warranty of loss, including profits. loss nomic of use implied). express Other 28, 2010, glass resulting February ply as the last outer and initiated crack- and, Piper’s warranty ing; date for cover- possible . age. ... impact is no 3.there evidence 24, 2010, making On June ASI was foreign object. 24,000 flight at photography routine feet ASI refused pay the June 30 bill from copilot’s when the windshield cracked On brought DMFS. October DMFS impact object. without from another against ASI in County suit Polk for breach performed an pilot emergency descent and (for invoice) pay contract failure proceeded inspection to Des Moines for (for misrepresentation and fraudulent as- repair. The crack a few occurred n get surances payment future made days of' shy ten months after the new DMFS to aircraft give up release the plane windshield was installed and the had lien). *4 January 2011, its artisan On a been returned to ASI submitted an ASI. change of granted moving venue was the expert stating from an that affidavit to Black County. Upon case Hawk trans- average life windshield should be fer, ASI raised affirmative defenses re- (10) (20) twenty years “ten im- absent garding negligent inspection and installa- installation, defect, proper product tion and product. defective ASI also impact object.” a foreign person No for against product counterclaimed DMFS (other windshield) than the defect, negligence inspect, for failure to
was harmed the crack the wind- installation, negligent ipsa loquitur, res Only economic losses resulted— shield.2 of warranty implied breach of merchanta- the cost of the windshield repair and the , bility, of of implied breach fit- cost to hire another company aviation particular for a purpose ness for the wind- complete during the contracted work re- shield, implied warranty and breach of pairs. particular purpose for a for fitness 29, 2010, replaced On June DMFS installing services the windshield. windshield, copilot’s cracked returned aircraft, on and invoiced ASI June 30. a cross-claim On November ASI filed labor, part, The invoice total for the defect, against Piper, alleging product neg adhesive install the to a used came ligent inspection, implied and breach $28,046.08. total, total Of warranty of merchantability. July On $19,323.63 replacement was the cost of the 2012, Piper summary judgment, moved for Engineering Trident windshield. Associ- claiming the doctrine barred economic loss ates examined the broken windshield damages against recovery Pip of economic determine the cause the crack. The er, citing Iowa section '554.2318 Code firm findings: made three (2009); (limiting, third-party warranty re primary
1. pilot’s crack in the covery- injured by to one “who originated windshield from N522AS warranty”). the. In a to the resis reply point ground edge at a on summary judgment, Piper tance assert lamination; glass exterior for first time immune from ed it was point origin proba- 2. most suit under Iowa section 613.18. On was bly grinding mark which December district court found ASI raised edge privity the local on with-Piper granted stress the was not occurred, damage 2. If other had liable. Industries, strictly PPG Inc. would have been
2Í6 to install. The summary judgment, as tion what windshield for
Piper’s motion summary judgment not recover plaintiffs could DMFS third-party court denied Piper; claim, losses finding gen- indirect its breach contract fact. issue of material uine a motion DMFS filed On December on all of ASI’s summary judgment for another motion May DMFS filed On summary partial judg counterclaims judgment, this time on the summary claims. DMFS also original on the ment As defenses offered affirmative ASI. doctrine, toss lack argued the economic February argued that the support, DMFS claim, ipsa loquitur control for the res ruling decided all the summary judgment 613.18, a failure immunity under resisted, the court but defenses. ASI warran elements establish 12. September favor DMFS’s found purpose, and particular ty of fitness 21 on on October A bench trial was held aircraft DMFS delivery contract, after issue the breach contract under created an repair misrepresentation count fraudulent alleged per DMFS’s party had which request of at the DMFS. dismissed ASI conceded was defective. formance any court found no evidence factor barred the toss doctriné n grind causing, mark the wind- than the defect, ipsa negligence, res However, con- the defect was crack and that ASI shtóld loquitur claims. *5 during not the solé grinding the mark was a seal attached that cealed beneath windshield and damage to the manufacturing. cause of the the The court held ‘ process may have been the installation negate not ASI’s to the did windshield ASI fur of of the crack.3 part the cause in- replacement to costs duty pay for the fit implied warranty of ther contested 2010 and ordered ASI curred June argued contract claim. ASI ness and the plus the invoice interest. pay replacement costs of the windshield and appealed judgment, DMFS ASI equitable benefits installation are and of interest. the calculation cross-appealed installation of sale and owed ASI appeals. court of to the sent the case We an unmerchantable windshield. the UCC appeals held that The court of court February the district On action, that the claim but applied summary judgment in favor granted 613.18 section was barred under on on claims based the tort DMFS of the plain language statute because As to the doctrine. toss excepting suits limiting language no had the district merchantability, on contract claiming based toss set forth facts found did not court ASI appeals coverage. court its The law anything the crack arose from under which interest owed DMFS recalculated the also barred the other than defect and entry to a rate and remanded tower 613.18. Code section claim under Iowa appeal, and DMFS does award. par- warranty of implied, fitness The address, the calculation. do not interest . be- claims denied purpose ticular were on for further review applied ASI cause had no-reason to-know the DMFS applicability section question put anything of. not be would windshiéld tosses under immunity to economic ordinary (ordinary use is a than use claim) had no discre- merchantability claim' would be under the was notes that the installation
3. DMFS windshield, merchantability. workmanship, not problem with the that Scope Implied Warranty II. Review. A. of Mer chantability. the district court’s “We review .., warranty of merchantability summary judgment ruling er correct a purchaser’s is based on reasonable v, Polaschek, Vossoughi rors at law.” expectation goods purchased from a 2015). (Iowa N.W.2d Our review n “merchant with respect goods of that determining is limited to the law whether will significant kind” be free of defects correctly applied or whether there is a perform and will way goods genuine issue of material fact. v. Sanford perform. kind should Fillenwarth, case, genuine Labs., issue of Wyk Inc., this Van Norden 81, 84 (Iowa fact is in dispute, 1984) material our decision (quoting 554.2314). entirely law. interpretation will rest To be merchantable statute, concur with of appeals goods We the court deci under the must sion application the UCC regarding pass a. objection in without issue this case and do not address the description; trade under the contract here. b. of fungible goods, the case are Analysis.
III. average fair quality within the de- scription;' and Today parties clarify ask us application c. are fit for ordinary purposes 613.18(l)(a). states, The section goods used; such which are products run, d. permit- lia- within the Limitation variations
bility kind, agreement, ted nonmanufacturers. of even quality and unit quantity within each person 1. A who not the assem- among involved; all units bler, designer, manufacturer, and who *6 contained, pack- e. whplesales, retails, adequately are distributes, or other- aged, agreement may labeled as the sells a is: wise and. require; and any upon a.Immune from suit based conform promises to the or affir- liability strict tort or breach im- of f. mations of fact or made the container plied warranty merchantability of which (cid:127) any. if label solely from arises defect original design or of manufacture 554.2314(2). § Code Iowa product. 554.2318, express Under and im- to Id. We are asked whether the plied third-party decide warranties to extend ben- 613.18(l)(a) legislature to intended section eficiaries—for example, buyers— remote apply to all reasonably retailer of implied expected to use or breaches otherwise-be warranty of merchantability prod- to goods injured by due affected who are legislature breach, uct or if intended the the warranty remote and the seller cases-resulting to be limited cannot exclude or of modify the extension in property damage personal injury. or warranty applied as in- injury itself, turning provision § Before we Express curred. Id. im- 554.2318. liability must frame how strict plied generally warranties can limited be implied warranty merchantability sale; of or work modified as of the contract (cid:127)with each other and the lines we have disclaimers or of implied modifications regarding liability warranty drawn each. of merchantability require specif- 218 and, Liability in writing, if must be B. Products and the language
ic fact, Doctrine. lia § Economic Loss “Products “[t]he Id. conspicuous. broadly legal law refers to the re bility merchantability of is warranty sponsibility resulting from the a war- and to the extent usually disclaimed Inc., product.” Wyeth, use Huck v. of limitations, exists, remedy notice re- ranty (Iowa 2014); Lovick 850 N.W.2d 373 or the statute limitations quirements, Wil-Rich, (Iowa v. 698 plaintiff from recov- generally prevent 1999). liability may “Product involve losses.” ering consequential in negligence, causes action stated strict Rusch, Liability Products Linda J. or liability warranty.” Bingham breach History: Rules Our Choice Trapped by Co., v. Marshall Huschaft Mach. 485 & Choices, .739, Temp. L. Rev. 76 Rules Our (Iowa the Warranty N.W.2d 79 (2003). 761 products ories relate through statutory consequential-dam statutory available remedies remedy person ages “injury prop for a of the breach any resulting proximately erty explained in 7 Part merchantability are warranty.” Iowa Code UCC, Article 2 found at of the 554.271o(2)(6). § Re Section As it re through .2725. sections 554.2701 (Third) of Torts: Lia statement Products liability, damages products lates Wright bility, adopted our court in today both include are concerned Ltd., Group Brooke N.W.2d provided for damages direct and indirect 2002), (Iowa imposes liability on sell and .2715. Section sections products ers distributors defective “damages buyer’s provides “for caused persons property harm the difference for breach of (Third) by the defect.” Restatement goods accept value ... between the .1, (1998). § Torts: Prods. Liab. at they would have had the value ed and they warranted.” been as had general con We examined 554.2714(2). consequen §’ Incidental and relating tours economic loss doctrine may also Id. damages be recovered. tial recoverability to1 the losses 554.2714(3). Incidental are injuries damaged are incurred or v, reasonably incurred inci expenses those Inc. destroyed Holdings, in Annett 554.2715(1). Id. the breach. dent Co, L.C., Kum & 503-04 Consequential damages include losses 2011) (examining the economic-loss *7 reason caused seller had the breach contract, tort, doctrine’s relation of con at the time possible know rule). exceptions general were to the In certain tracting “injury person prop any a purely damages, the.case economic any resulting erty proximately in plaintiff cannot tort. Van Sick recover 554.2715(2). warranty.” breach of Id. v. le Constr. Co. Commercial Wachovia consequential Inc., dam 684, (Iowa For the kind first Mortg., 692-93 N.W.2d 783 accepted goods 2010). buyer who has ages, “the a found “that who plaintiff We have then their must only discovers defects show has has suffered. economic-loss .... at injured that the had reason know the seller- not been in manner which contracting buyer’s of the possible legally cognizable or compensable” time wheth by a breach to recover con negligence losses er that loss out caused arose s. sequential damages.” Nachazel Miraco case Nelson v. Todd’s strict 1988) (Iowa 1988). Ltd., (Iowa 432 160 426 123 Mfg., N.W.2d N.W.2d 219 However, (quoting Innkeepers, Neb. v. Pitts at Inc. 309. when considering the burgh-Des Corp., Moines 345 compensability consequential N.W.2d economic (Iowa 1984)), Instead, parties 126 to a damages, agreed loss we with an academic contract are assumed to have allocated noting treatise that a seller cannot foresee that risk economic loss as purchaser uses remote might have contract; therefore, “that document should product, for the that a seller right has the party’s rights control the and duties.” An product to sell price at a lower and exclude nett Holdings, 801 at 503-04. N.W.2d losses, consequential economic buyer to bargain should have with the In Fire Casualty American seller for consequential immediate econom- Co., developed Co. v. Ford Motor we ic losses. Id. at (discussing 309-10 James distinction between tortious and contractu Summers, J. White & S. Robert Uniform products liability damage al beyond when 11-5, (3d Commercial Code at 539-40 occur, specifying loss tort did ed.1988)). held “nonprivity buyers We theory was “available when the harm re rely express who warranties are limited from ‘a dangerous sults sudden or occur to direct damages.” economic loss Id. at rence, frequently involving some violence 310. objects, or collision resulting with external genuine from a hazard in the nature 1995 examining case Another product N.W.2d defect.’” economic loss doctrine under the UCC was (Iowa 1999) Nelson, (quoting 426 N.W.2d Tomka v. Corp., Hoechst Celanese 125). Thus, damage at if the resulted N.W.2d 107-08 from a product prop failure to work plaintiff had sued a manufacturer of erly, contract, the claim sound would growth express hormones for but from genuine it resulted hazard warranty and the warranties of resulting in a dangerous sudden or occur merchantability and for a particular fitness rence based nature purpose, well as as under theories of defect, the claim would sound tort. See negligence products and strict liability. id.; Nelson, . at 125. N.W.2d First, Id. at 105. we the tort dismissed law, contract
Under the economic claims the cattle belonged because' to a loss can apply doctrine when “a contractu party, actually damaged by third were not al chain of distribution simply lead[s] defen the hormone grow but failed to at Holdings, dant.”' Annett at expected, rate and the defect did not principle 505. We have this applied danger result in to the user. Id. at 106- determining third-party coverage of 07. We then turned to Tomka’s theories, warranties under dismissing express his consequential context of using claim as reasoning same as case, losses. one looked at Beyond the Garden Gate—he was not a third-party plaintiff privity could only manufacturer recover from the sought under consequential manufacturer economic losses with *8 express warranty. Beyond the Garden recoverable direct economic Id. at loss. Gate, Inc. v. Freeze-Dry Mfg., Northstar reasoning 107-08. We found the same Inc., 305, (Iowa 306, 526 applied N.W.2d 309-10 using implied to disallow 1995). First,.we noted that a nonprivity against theories remote manufacturers buyer can only recover direct economic loss consequential economic losses and the remote allowing that such losses would undermine seller/manufac turer an express warranty. legislative breaches Id. the of scheme the UCC. at Id.
220 Instead, party the plaintiff aggrieved may the to to end the we directed
108. put good in as if the position immediate to recover be as- look to sellers ” Thus, fully performed.... Id. al had party theories. Id. under . 554.1305(1) § warranty ex though the 554.2318 damaged to applies by those defec tension passed part as Section it does when a not' extend goods, tive “Liability Liability on and Insurance.” act loss buyer only remote seeks (codified in 1986 Iowa Acts 1211 ch. scat- Corp., 721 damages. Cory Kolarik v. Int’l (1987)); sections Code see tered Iowa 2006). (Iowa 159, 168& n. 3 N.W.2d 1211, (codified § ch. 32 at id.- Code Iowa 613.18). examples provisions § Other Application. in goal Our C. change in found the Act include social is to conflict statutes resolve interpreting law, dramshop liability host and insur- way consistent' with ing constructions assistance, of a tort ance the creation lia- Teamsters legislature. intent of defense, a bility state-of-the-art new chap- Dubuque, City Local v. Union No. 421 exemplary damages, on punitive ter and 2005). (Iowa 709, 713-14 To 706 N.W.2d of a study commission lia- creation intent, legislative we look determine 26-31, 1211, 11-12, §§ bility. Id. eh. 41- statute, used, the language purpose (codified 42, 123.49, §§ 44 at Iowa implicated, and policies and remedies .92; 507D.1-.6; 668.12; § § id. id. id. resulting from different consequences 668A.1). § These relate to iypes sections Iowa Individual interpretations. Health coverage liability of tort insurance v. Univ. Reins. State Ass’n Benefit liability, depend all which 2016). (Iowa Iowa, 876 N.W.2d 804-05 personal presence its enact entire assess the statute We damage to be in effect. Act was mean “give proper statute ment its Summary Legis- to in the referred Pella, City Sanon v. ing context.” major lation as “a revision of Iowa’s tort (Iowa “[A] -indicating liability system,” further interpreted to not be read statute should legislature’s specific intention the act. as a matter of is a statute out what clear Bureau, Summary Legislative Serv. su English” should not render terms 1986), Legislation 29-30 meaningless. 1A Norman J. perfluous or https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/pu Singer Singer, Statutes and & Shambie. ’ (describing blications/SOL/401754.pdf one (7th 21:1, § at 163 Statutpry Construction to tort effected modification ed.2009) pro If two .Singer], [hereinafter “[cheating exemption as a retailer’s Act in. conflict, give them construe visions actions”). products both, possible. if Iowa Code effect § 4.7. The title the Iowa Code interpret, part “liberally be construed we seek stat
The UCC products promote passed, ute is “Limitation on lia underlying its applied bility sim of monmanufaeturers.” Iowa Code policies,” which include purposes (2009); § 1986 Iowa standardizing, modernizing see Acts ch. plifying, § title of a “Although 32. stat law. 554.1103. contract meaning- of cannot limit Moreover,' plain “no of it shall be ute deemed text, subsequent determining it can be impliedly considered repealed to be Tague, legislative reason intent.”" State legislation such construction can (Iowa 2004) T (quoting & ably “[Rem be avoided.” Id. Educ., Roofing Dep’t K Co. v. Iowa liberally . -.. must be edies administered
221 (Iowa 1999)). liability “This is phrases 163 “strict in tort” N.W.2d and title-and-headings canon.” implied as the known “breach of merchanta- Garner, Read Bryan A. bility.” king, Antonin Scalia & is this juxtapo- Context Legal ing Interpretation Law: The signals of warranty sition the breach (2012) (noting titles and head require personal Texts to should be construed on an light ings can be to shed damage apart useful or injury from the or ambiguous phrase itself, as tools for the word product consistent with strict doubt). may “A title resolution statute’s liability the title the act. or only existing
be used resolve doubts legislature The knows how cross-ref- meanings ambiguities statutory as to the immunity erence the statute and UCC ambiguity not to create where none with warranty statute other enactments.4 18:7, § Singer 1A at We 78-79. existed.” Although the official version Iowa Code this our principle along have used with — section 554.2314 includes the editor’s note statutory interpretation rules —to other “Limitation; end, § 613.18” at its that lim- purely “claims for economic loss exclude itation added the Code editor Comparative non-torts” from the Iowa is not an legislature’s indication despite statutory Fault Act definition legislature If intention. had intended including of warranty within the statutory immunity the retailer provision meaning Stahly, of “fault.” Flom v. claims, to defeat contractual it (Iowa 140-41 Similar N.W.2d by adding could have done so section 613.18, ly, the of section title “Limitation immunity to the limitations in sec- nonmanufacturers,” liability product 554.2314(1) tion’ or to the exclusion and limits statutory immunity indicates modification of the warranties statute claims for product personal Indeed, considering section 554.2316. property damage, not contract express' modifications and limitations on damage product claims to the itself. warranties found sections 554.2316 (cid:127) .2318, Moreover, in through be it seems far more likely words must terpreted legislature, context. U.S. Bank Nat’l that the it had intended do Lamb, so, Ass’n v. 117-18 have provided implied would war- (Iowa 2016). ranty merchantability apply canon does not noscitur a sociis any design construction rule a seller of a [a] “summarizes language meanings manufacturing in chapter both law that the defects 554 rath- particular may words among provisions be indicated er than the tort legislature controlled Peak in chapter associated words.” 613. The did not Adams, either statute the other. 547-48 cross-reference 2011) Lord, (quoting job A. Our is to-harmonize these statutes Willi- Richard (4th 32:6, § ston Contracts give interpretation at to each. Our effect ed.1999)). couples Section 613.18 does so. example, prospective buyer_”).
4. For Code section 554A.1 disclosed governing expressly ex- sale of livestock Conversely, Iowa Codé section 455B.803 ex- cludes warranties of pressly extends section 613.18’s certain disclosures are made. ("A 455B.803(4) recyclers. Id. vehicle vehi- See, 554A.1(1) (“Notwith- e.g., recycler performs required cle as under a 554.2316, standing subsection all removal, collection, recovery plan shall arising sections warranties under protections provided be afforded the in sec- 554.2314 and 554.2315 are excluded 613.18.”). tion following sale of cattle ... if the information *10 provision immunity advocated section position to Contrary 613.18(l)(u ).5 613.18(l)(a) holding, In so utilize the in- we DMFS, cannot be consistently used in our same distinctions nonmanufacturing sell- grant terpreted to party to a is liable for cases determine suit in manu- immunity from complete ers products law liability under tort cases. Such a facturing design and defect beneficiary warranty third-party and to the con- run counter construction would only product If results claims. a defective in provision struction loss, only buyer in allow implied repeal to the mandates against bring express under an a claim warran- con- chapter 4 to construe Code of Iowa a against ty for economic losses direct both, pro- give effect to flicting statutes to warranty claims for con- remote seller and result,” “just a and reasonable mote against losses the sell- sequential economic private in- public interests over promote privity in them unless disclaimed. er .7; 4.4, §§ id. terests. 108; Tomka, Beyond at See sought by interpretation § 554.1104. The Gate, at 310. Garden im- effectively invalidate would DMFS any damage personal or property Once merchantability for warranty of plied resulting from a injury exists manufactur- consumer commercial majority of defect, the manufacturer ing product or involving product failure. transactions party under tort law becomes the liable buyer Further, solely on the place it would Iowa section 554.2318. Code product of risk of a the entire burden then has access the tort manufacturer general that suffers a use purchased permissible disclaimers any defenses and design but does manufacturing warranty. in See made person or cause additional injure a 554.2316, .2318; (products §§ id. result, this inter- damage. As a property defenses). cases, loss promote behaviors could adverse pretation for the seller is liable immediate Here, con- such a by product consumers. subject any implied warranty, breach of penalize because the ASI struction would exclusions, modifications, or dis- steps took immediate pilot the aircraft in the contract. Id. claimers found sales damage any potential mitigate 554.2316, himself, thereby pre- injury aircraft or Moreover, damage. venting compensable Conclusion. IV. encourage behavior so reckless it could stated, For the we conclude the reasons damage would result product failure application its district court erred This of harm claim. kind compensable 613.18(l)(a) in a case Iowa Code section possible and its result could to consumers to economic losses. limited Section legislature’s intention not have been 613.18(l)(a) only applies to passing section personal inju- claims of claims that include damage. The products ry property decision We hold requiring personal appeals is therefore affirmed must court case exist— damage part, occur due and vacated the dis- summary judgment dismissing trict design trigger court manufacturing defect—to interpreta- tion from defect claims.” Nation court also uses this 5. The federal statutory protection Agribusiness [un- Co. SMA "[Defendant’s tion: Ins. Elevator wide 613.18(l)(a) Inc., claims of from] der section F.Supp.2d Constr. implied warranty of merchanta- (N.D.Iowa 2011). breach of statutory protec- bility is with its co-extensive *11 damages for warranty claim is reversed. b. Not liable implied ASI’s based in tort or proceed- upon liability strict breach of is for further The case remanded implied warranty merchantability ings opinion. consistent with this product upon proof that the the manu- AP- OP COURT OF DECISION subject jurisdiction is facturer IN AND PEALS AFFIRMED PART VA- this not the courts of state and has been PART; IN COURT CATED DISTRICT judicially insolvent. declared AND RE- JUDGMENT REVERSED 613.18(1)(2009). MANDED. rather, ambiguous; Section is not 613.18 plain language precludes its courts award- WIGGINS, All justices except concur any damages in ing suits based strict ZAGER, MANSFIELD, JJ., who liability implied warranty or breach dissent. brought against nonmanufacturers due WIGGINS, (dissenting). Justice alleged design manufacturing or defects. legislature the im- Had intended extend of section 613.18 interpretation The the munity to nonmanufaeturers in suits based majority not adopts reflect intent does n liability implied on strict or breach war- legislature. interpreting a stat- ranty alleged unless an defect resulted in ute, following we observe the rules: losses, purely it economic could done have goal statutory The construction is to adding language so additional to section legislative intent. determine We deter- Instead, legislature a enacted legislative from mine intent the' words statutory immunity bill that created broad legislature, not what it chosen claims such nonmanufacturers might or said. should have Absent a limiting no language and contained statutory or definition an established immunity damages based on the claimed. words, law, meaning in in the statute majority opinion meaning ignores The given ordinary are their and common plain language of the statute meaning by considering the context eliminate for nonmanufacturers they within which are used. Under the liability in strict and breach of construction, guise interpreting purely involving suits extend, body may enlarge not or other- clearly plain language losses. Because the change meaning of wise a statute. precludes recovery regardless of what Div., Beverages Auen v. Alcoholic claimed, damages it ignore are we cannot (Iowa 2004) (citations remedy. to fashion a omitted). Moreover, legislative history of sec- in question provides, statute that, clearly tion un- 613.18 demonstrates assembler, person A who de- statute, proper interpretation der a manufacturer, signer, of and who whole- any nonmanufacturers are not liable for sales, retails, distributes, or otherwise damages alleging suits strict sells a is: of implied warranty based on al- breach any upon leged design manufacturing a. Immune from suit based defects strict of im- products, they design breach or manufac- did not plied warranty merchantability early which ture. As as established solely principle person may purely arises from an collect original design of an manufacture suits breach product. implied warranty the Uniform Com- under Enters., of im- biguously limited claims breach Livestock W & W mercial Code.6 Dennler, nonmanufacturing warranty against plied Inc. Thus, legislature Thus, by 1986 when added merchants. Code editor 613.18, it well-settled following enacted section note the 1987 Code losses re- purely economic were consti- indicating law that damages in warran- breach coverable as availability tuted “Limitation” should not fact indicates we ty This provid- suits. claims *12 limit nonmanu- 613.18 interpret section in that section. Code ed Iowa immunity breach of in statutory (1987). facturers’ § 554.2314 involving warranty defective implied suits con- indicating 613.18 The note section design not manufac- products they did scope on the stitutes a “Limitation” in which the defect ture to cases 554.2314has claims available under section personal inju- damage caused appeared every subsequent in edition ry. § Iowa Code 554.2314 the Code. See enact- of the bill the The title legislature (2015). not acted. legislature has Yet the provision clearly in ed indicated Surely, legislature thought if the Code at section 613.18 intend- to be codified incorrectly interpreted section editor liability of nonmanufac- “limit[ ] ed to may scope limit of claims that 613.18to upon strict based turers claims 554.2314, it brought under section be , warranty.” implied in or breach clarifying legislation have would enacted G.A., 2nd Sess. 5.F. 71st by now. explanation made clear bill The attached interpreting sec- majority The asserts nonmanufacturers passed, the bill 613.18(l)(a) grant nonmanufactur- tion damages ... only “liable for be would from suit in complete immunity manu- ers not original manufacturer where the cases would facturing design judicially or has service subject to been repeal the cause action afford- impliedly damages in in insolvent” suits for declared against 554.2314. sellers under section ed implied warran- or breach strict However, deny not majority does solely alleged design on ty based suits subsequent passage section legislature’s product. manufacturing Id. defects to limit the cause 613.18was intended explanation. provided action section 554.2314. legislature Iowa rec- Though the knew scope of that dispute. This concerns the warranty as a ognized breach limiting majority grafted The has limit. involving action in cause of cases viable 613.18(l)(a) that has principle onto section losses, it enacted bill economic purely in the text either 613.18 basis section immunity from granting statutory broad 554.2314. or section to non- claims breach contrast, interpretation of my plainly bill did not The manufacturers. legislature 613.18gives the words statutory im- to that contain an exception in- clearly their adopted that section implied warranty munity for breach 613.18(l)(a) grants tended Section resulting purely losses. effect. claims li- immunity strict recognized legis- nonmanufacturers editor Even the Code ability claims aris- unam- breach of section 613.18 enactment lature’s chapter § legislature 554 as the 6. The refers Code. Uniform Commercial purely majority has loss.
mg product defects. due 613.18(l)(b) 613.18(l)(a). clari- statutory Section narrowed the that sec- may conclu- a nonmanufacturer fies that grants tion 613.18 nonmanufacturers .for damages it is not sively establish liable design manufacturing claims based brought against byit such claims are to it. Had exception defects crafting juris- state proving the courts this have legislature nar- intended create such product over the manufacturer diction statutory immunity for row nonmanufac- has not been product manufacturer turers, However, it could have done so. 613.18(1)(6). Id. insolvent. declared statutory provides text no indication permits of war- Section agree was its intent. I cannot ranty claims de- premised reasoning or its conclusion. majority’s nonmanufacturing merchant against fects Therefore, I dissent. adopted interpretation Unlike the sellers. majority, interpretation gives this by the ZAGER, JJ., join MANSFIELD and grafting effect without *13 this dissent. arbitrary plain language limit onto of section 613.18. proper interpretation
Under a
613.18(1), is not Flying Des Moines Service any of im-
liable manu-
plied warranty based
facturing in the windshield it did
manufacture, including damages based on