Western International & National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Kirkpatrick

INTERNATIONAL and WESTERN Fire Insurance

National Union

Co., Appellants, KIRKPATRICK, Appellee. E.

Elizabeth

No. 86-1061.

Supreme Court of Iowa. 12, 1986.

Nov.

As Amended Nov. Goode,

Sara Sersland Nyemaster, McLaughlin, O’Brien, P.C., Emery & Des Moines, appellants. for Harry Moines, W. Dahl ap- Des for pellee. Sullins, Moines,

Ray Des for amicus curi- ae Small Employers, Business Work- Compensation ers' Group. Miller, Gen., J. Atty.

Thomas and Eliza- Osenbaugh, Deputy Atty. Gen., beth M. for Attorney amicus curiae General of Iowa. Jr., Moines, Arthur C. Hedburg, Des for Labor, amicus curiae Iowa Federation AFL-CIO. Dudley Murray,

Dan L. Davoren & Moines, Heul, Dudley, Des Ann M. Yer Moines, Des for amicus curiae Donald Avenson, House, Speaker of the Iowa C.W. (Bill) Hutchins, Leader, Majority Senate Hultman, Minority and Calvin O. Senate Assembly. of the 71st Leader General Bluffs, Thorn, James E. and Den- Council Eaton, Moines, nis L. Des for amicus curiae Compensation. Advisory Workers’ Committee.

McGIVERIN, 17A, of chapter petitions for Justice. re- view be filed district court of recently legislation provid- Does enacted county the hearing under ing section 86.17 was held. Such a review from the industrial commissioner’s cases proceeding shall be accorded priority directly to this court violate cer- decision pending over other matters before the provisions of the Iowa Constitution? tain district court. conclude that it does. Section 46 of File House the 1986 The necessarily by issue was raised legislation, would amend Iowa Code section by petitioners motion filed this court 86.24, concerning by decisions the industri- International and National Union Western commissioner, al by adding a requested Fire Insurance The motion new subsec- Co. petitioners’ tion as appeal that we rule whether follows: petition agen- for review of the and 5. The decision of industrial com- cy decision industrial commis- Iowa missioner is agency final action and an in this case sioner workers’ appeal of the decision shall be made di- properly court or was before this whether rectly supreme to the court. district court review on Section 47 of House File 2066 would proper for be forum review of the amend provide Iowa Code section 86.26 to The commissioner’s decision. answer de- as follows: validity on pends the constitutional of re- Judicial review of decisions orders of cent amendments to Iowa Code sections the industrial commissioner shall not be and 86.26 86.24 to the district but shall court be made petitioners’ hearing We set motion for court, directly supreme to the notwith- parties invited and and all other inter- 17A, standing chapter the Iowa adminis- persons ested briefs as to submit procedure judi- trative act. Petitions for constitutionality amending legisla- of the cial review shall be filed with the clerk of Respondent-claimant tion. Elizabeth E. supreme are court as other actions Kirkpatrick legislation contends the vio- appeal supreme The review. court respects. lates constitution in several may transfer the action court of Petitioners take position, no while amici appeals. divide on curiae both sides of the issues. (cid:127) through package Sections 46 49 were a duly The matter has been submitted. provisions concerning compen- Background procedures. I. and facts appeals package The sation and costs. con- July Effective on procedural tained several substantive and enacted, governor approved, and the House changes prior The statutes. sections Legis.Serv. 2066. File 7-126 portion sixty-one were a of a section “code (West). through Sections 46 49 of that act, corrections” File that was House legislation purported to amend Iowa Code entitled: 86.24 sections and 86.26. thrust of the An relating to code corrections which provide amendments is to review a di- adjust and correct omissions and earlier rect from agency this court deci- inaccuracies, inconsistencies, remove in workers’ compensation sions cases rath- practices, reflect or alter current by judicial petition than er to dis- providing penalties. provided by court as trict Iowa Admin- Act, chapter istrative Procedure Iowa Code constitutionality In considering the 17A. through sections following questions: (1985) address the provides: Code section 86.26 legislation appel- violate the Judicial Does the review of decisions or orders designated supreme of the late role of the court industrial commissioner sought with the in article 4 of the Iowa Consti- accordance terms of chapter Notwithstanding 17A. the terms tution? legislation single (1935),

2. Does the petitioner violate the for a writ of certiorari provisions supreme and title of article wanted the to determine section 29 of the superintendent public Iowa Constitution? whether the state required instruction was to review a school Appellate supreme II. role board’s cancellation of a teacher’s contract. supreme court. The response question, to this we stated: court is set out section 4 of the This court supervisory exercises no con- Constitution, provides: trol over those superin- officers [state appellate court shall have public tendent county instruction and jurisdiction only chancery, in cases in superintendent of the school district]. shall constitute a court for the correction They are not inferior tribunals. law, of errors at under such restrictions They are executive officers of the state law, general assembly may, by as the belong department to the executive prescribe; and shall have to issue government. of the state process necessary all writs and to secure justice parties, to and shall exercise jurisdiction ... This court is without to supervisory and administrative control except issue a writ of certiorari to inferi- judicial over all inferior tribunals judicial tribunals. Its to re- throughout the state. quire proceedings that be certified to this provision specifies This constitutional the court for review is judicial limited to original appellate jurisdiction of this appel- tribunals over which it exercises court. late supervisory jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction. A. We petitioner remedy. has misconceived his previously original jur have noted that the applied He should have to the district isdiction of this court is limited to the su court for the writ. If the decision of the pervision judicial of inferior tribunals.1 district court on the return of the writ is Critelli, Iowa Civil Liberties Union v. unsatisfactory, he have it reviewed 564, (Iowa 1976). N.W.2d supervi by appeal. this court on sory power only (a) should be exercised as 172, Id. at thereby N.W. at 170. We jurisdiction” (b) “a check guaran on “a determined that this court cannot constitu- ty of a means of review when without it tionally supervisory power exercise its over justice substantial could not be had.” agency. an administrative Education, 502, Hohl v. Board 250 Iowa of Three 1959 cases decided this court 508, 787, support proposition further the that the Respondent-claimant Kirkpatrick asserts supreme original jur- court cannot exercise 2066, that provid- section 47 of House File isdiction appeal agency over the from an ing appeal for direct of industrial commis- Hohl, decision. In sought individuals decisions, sioner contested case would re- appeal department pub- a decision of the of sult an unconstitutional exercise of the .in instruction, fixing lic the boundaries of a original jurisdiction. court’s argues She 503, proposed school district. 250 Iowa at the deciding industrial commissioner in 94 N.W.2d at 788. The individuals success- performing quasi-judicial cases is func- fully petitioned the district court for a writ tion; however, not, fact, agency the is an department appealed certiorari. The judicial inferior tribunal. grant this court from the of the writ. We

We have acknowledged jurisdiction addressed the issue of whether of the matter. an agency regarded administrative is to jurisdic- Id. at 94 N.W.2d at 789. The as an judicial inferior clearly appel- tribunal a number of tion exercised in Hohl was Independent late, times. reviewing School District v. the action of the district Samuelson, certiorari, granting 262 N.W. 169 court the writ of rather McMahon, original jurisdiction Welty 1. This court’s has also been tion of a tribunal. concerning (Iowa 1982). composi- used to review actions N.W.2d part. original supervisory on our supervisory and administrative control over than all squares throughout This decision with Samuelson tribunals inferior agency added.) (Emphasis review of the deci- initial the state.” We con- clude, court cases, should the district with prior sion occur based on that an supreme court correct agency an administrative is not an “inferior at law. errors purposes tribunal” “appeal” section 4. This actually an The school district case In re original courts; proceeding in the there- Proposed Community School District of fore, taking this case would result in an Malvern, 1240, 1246, 98 N.W.2d original juris- unconstitutional exercise of (1959), argued action diction court. county quasi-judicial; school board was the district court could substitute its thus Appellate jurisdiction. B. Kirkpat- judgment for that of the without board rick, us, argument argued at oral before violating provision the constitutional re- jurisdic- alternative that exercise quiring separation powers. by this over appeals tion court the direct Const, Ill, stated, art. “That from the industrial commissioner’s contest- might quasi- action of board be termed case would ed decisions exceed this court’s legis- judicial would not remove it from appellate jurisdiction as stated in article it, fact, judicial.” category lative or make 4. Some of the amici curiae have Iowa at at 741. stated the Therefore, distinguished between original not be because this court would judiciary quasi-judicial and the functions of be making not the initial determinations of agency. an administrative fact law. We clearly set this distinction out more previously stated have that Proposed the case re Community in of In appel reviews are 250 Farragut, District Iowa School in late nature. Iowa Public Co. Service v. 1324, (1959). 98 N.W.2d 888 We stated: Commission, Iowa State 263 Commerce ordinary think appeal from a [W]e 766, (Iowa 1978); N.W.2d 768 Minnesota decision of an administrative tribunal to Rehnblom, Valley Canning Co. v. 242 regarded the courts is not to be as a real 553, 1112, 1116, (1951). 49 Iowa N.W.2d 554 is, effect, judicial appeal. nothing It in true, proposition This remains even view getting more than a means of the matter holding our in subdivision A above. The original pro- before the trial court as an of an district court on review indus ceeding original judgment. an and for decision reviews the trial commissioner’s proceeding record made in the below. ‘appeal’ ... “It is not sense of an a 17A.19(7). to, Iowa Code This is similar § transfer of from one court to as, not the same our review errors but another, simply provides process, but ‘a of law of a district court decision. Iowa misleading appeal, under the name of for Const, V, art. Judicial review of ad § invoking judicial power to determine agency action differs ministrative also legality ... of an act done ordinarily appeal agen from an in that ” department.’ officers of another cy party becomes a to the review and ar 1328-29, (quot- at Id. 98 N.W.2d at 890-91 action, its gues to sustain while trial ing Sunderland, DeFlumeri v. 109 Conn. opinion partic rendering an does not 583, 585, 48, (1929)). 145 A. 49 We ac- from ipate an its decision. Cedar knowledged legislature may enact Rapids Rights Commission v. Ce Human regulating procedure pleading statutes District, Rapids Community dar School 1329, proceedings. for these at Id. 1974). (Iowa 391, But see N.W.2d at 891. (industrial commissioner Iowa Code 86.29 proceedings). party Article section 4 not a to Con review of stitution states this court “shall exercise a Thus administrative truly appeal. action is not an tive Article agency enactments. requirements out as sets two such follows: only appellate in review is nature. Every subject, act shall embrace one but leg We have also stated that properly and matters connected there- may set terms and conditions for islature with; subject expressed shall be expressly This reserved appeal. if any subject the title. But shall be legislature section 4. embraced in act which shall not be an provision This constitutional allows the title, expressed such shall be prescribe general assembly to restrictions only so void as to much thereof as shall supreme appellate jurisdic on the court’s expressed not be in the title. through 49 tion. Sections 46 provision yet insepa- This has two distinct appellate jurisdic not restrict the 2066 do components: single subject rable court, supreme they tion of the rather en requirements. title large expand jurisdiction. A the court’s subject A. General One rule. principle well-settled constitutional for analyzing rules whether an enactment expand law is that the cannot subject than one can relates more be juris enlarge supreme appellate court’s in Long Supervisors, found Board v. 337, O’Donnell, diction. State v. 176 Iowa (statute (1916) N.W. subjects not be Two covered one which allowed court on review of subjects act unless the can be considered evidence, weigh murder conviction to deter to or related connected with one another. degree punish guilt mine and fix the at Id. N.W.2d at 381. consti unconstitutionally enlarged ment provision given is to tutional liberal powers); granted Spaulding, Powell unimportant It is construction. Id. that (Iowa 1852) (statute Greene that single might matters within the we deemed unconstitutional allowed this logically separate as more be classified court to review district court where subjects germane action if they are nevertheless remedy given single subject” subject. no other was at law. We to a Id. The “one prevent place logrolling is in held not rule court could exercise this legislative procedure. orderly facilitate jurisdictional power enlarged it because Id.; Cascade, City see v. 231 Green by expressly was the constitu inhibited of (1975). 886 N.W.2d tion.). argued It has been that House File 2066 4 Article section of the Con Iowa subject matters embraces numerous general assembly stitution reserves to the carrying purpose out its as a code correc- appellate jurisdic the to restrict the 14.6(1) gives bill. Code tions Iowa section legislation tion of this court. The chal recommending duty the code editor the of here, lenged File House 2066 sections 46 amend, that it revise and the 49, goes through beyond general the as codify conflicting, code sections which are sembly’s power to restrict the ambiguous. carrying redundant or In out jurisdiction. court’s conclude sections obligation, proposes code an this the editor through 46 49 File of House 2066 violate omnibus bill makes technical that correc- they section 4 in that unconstitu throughout tions the code. The omnibus tionally expand jurisdiction. this court’s generally bill deals with non-substantive changes in the code. Subject requirements. III. title also Iowa Constitution sets certain oth- cor- Because the Act contains both code 2 requirements validity legisla- changes er for the of rections and the substantive examples placed 2. House File would it with word "followed.” Section 30 Some from 2066 the changes be of House the words "is illustrative its non-substantive of File 2066 substituted lexicographical word in Iowa Code nature. Section 23 of absent from” for the “leaves” 719.4(3). "following" 2066 the House File deleted word section Numerous sections 565A.2(l)(c) Code sec- from Iowa Code section and re- File 2066 inserted references one

365 through sufficient, 46 49 of House A is though found sections title even it broad, 2066, Kirkpatrick gives is if argues that it em- it fair of provi notice a body sion in of Despite the an subject. Streepy, more than one the act. braces Iowa at Act, N.W. of at 43. enact nature the she would not omnibus ment is constitutionally as valid to the title changes if all the were strike the Act non- utterly incongruous unless matter corrections; however, substantive code general subject of the is statute buried in is not the case here. the County, act. v. Witmer Polk 1075, 1085, Following Kirkpatrick’s reasoning, 270 N.W. Talerico, 1315, 1322, State v.

we can still effectuate the intent of the (1940), stated, N.W. legislature in we providing for a code correc title “[T]he need not index epitome be an keep order. Only tions bill to the code in or its subject details. The bill incorporates need type when that bill also specifically not be exactly expressed here, changes, do substantive as we have must, however, title.” The title give portions of a challenged to strike bill which fair subject notice of the act’s and it III, Therefore, must violate article section 29. not deceive its reader. See State Nickel through we conclude sections 46 49 of son, 834; Singer, at N. Suther single subject House violate the File 2066 Statutory (C. land Construction 18.10 requirement of the Iowa Constitution 1985) (Generality Sands 4th ed. of the title providing changes for substantive in a code is enough not reason strike act un corrections bill. less misleading deceptive.). the title is Sufficiency Kirkpatrick B. title. determining title, “In sufficiency of a through asserts also that sections 46 49 of courts examine anyone reading whether satisfy House File fail title reasonably title of an act could assume requirement Spe- of article apprised reader all of cifically give she claims the title fails to its provisions.” Op.Iowa material change reasonable notice the Att’y Gen. 173. compensation appeal process, Enterprises, In Lee Inc. v. Iowa State it also misleads reader as to the Commission, (Iowa Tax 162 N.W.2d 730 being the Act entitled "code correc- 1968), an analyzed we the title of act modi- tions” bill. fying applicability of the state sales specifical- and use The title tax. of the act legislation given While ly of existing stated it was “modification presumption benefit of a of constitutionali sales and use taxes.” We concluded this Nickelson, ty, State v. language in title was sufficient to meet (Iowa 1969), purpose must insure the challenge. the title 162 N.W.2d at 738. requirement the title is not frustrated. purpose requirement guar is of to case, however, In this the lan given antee that is reasonable notice guage nearly of the is not as title informa legislators public and of the inclusion tive. It it is a states code corrections bill bill; provisions proposed of in a thus it is altering practices, does current but not en prevent surprise Long said and fraud. lighten practices the reader as to what are 1284, Supervisors, v. Board 258 Iowa at being changed. There is no indication in of 381; 142 N.W.2d at Chicago, see Rock Is the title of File House enact Railway & v. Streepy, land Co. change ment a in effected workers’ com Pacific 856, 851, 41, (1929); 207 Iowa 224 N.W. appellate procedure in pensation law or Des Moines National Fairweath volving compensation Bank v. cases workers’ er, 1240, 1248, 459, 191 Iowa 181 N.W. 461 the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. (1921); Reed, provisions Rex Lumber Co. v. 107 Iowa These are in the buried middle 111, 113-14, 572, sixty-one 77 N.W. of a section 573-74 enactment purposes. E.g.,

tion to another Code section H.F. 2066 § for definitional 5. fairly subjects focus, could be said to make otherwise lexi- is its main while cographical changes. only secondary. The reader of the another is Id. When we change title is not informed that a drastic can of provisions ascertain which the two enacted, law will re- have canwe uphold sult legislative striking from this bill’s enactment. The title of intent clearly vague only subject. Here, House File 2066 the secondary mis- we have leading, violating thus the mandate of arti- concluded that the focus of the Act was III, corrections; cle section 29. code therefore we limit can ruling our unconstitutionality of to those III, “When it is clear that section [article provisions, through sections 49 of House of has disregard- the Constitution been 29] 2066, File that do not relate to code correc- ed, proclaim we must not hesitate to tions. supremacy of the Streepy, Constitution.” 855-56, Also, 207 Iowa at 224 N.W. at 43. We under II of opinion, division . 4, addressing are satisfied that the title here did not meet article section we need therefore, requirements; only constitutional strike provisions improperly those challenged provisions, expand we conclude jurisdiction sec- of this court. See through tions 46 House File City Cain, 49 of are Council v. of Bluffs III, (Iowa 1983) (If part unconstitutional as violative a unconstitutional, section statute is the court must remaining portion sustain the if it is a IV. means re effective intent.); expression legislative viable viewing the industrial commissioner's de Monroe, (Iowa State v. cision. Because we conclude that sections 1975) (The court must sustain as much of through 49 of House 2066 violate possible, portion the act if as a is found Constitution, they the Iowa are stricken unconstitutional.). Therefore, we invali- of no effect as amendments to the only through date sections code. Iowa Code sections 86.24 and 86.26 Legis.Serv. File 2066. 1986 Iowa 7-142 to (1985) remain in effect. See Talbott 7-143. City Moines, 1397, 1400, Des Disposition. V. (1934) (“Former prior Based on the 257 N.W. act re reasoning, regard peti- mains in force conclude when unconstitutional void.”); tioners’ properly motion that we do not amendment is declared Suther (“A petitioners’ have Statutory land 2.07 over Construction § statutory provision petition holding decision review from inval reactivating id has prior the effect of industrial commissioner’s decision. Peti- they statute which the invalid act had tioners’ motion peti- dis states also filed a placed.”). Judicial review of the tion for industrial review the district court sought commissioner’s decision County, for Polk which we conclude is the district court in with proper accordance Iowa Code forum under Code section 86.- chapter 17A. 86.26. (1985) Iowa Code chapter 26 and 17A to review the commissioner’s decision under this record. provisions Other of House File order, prior stay Our as proceed- to further 2066 are not affected decision. Ar ings in the district court ticle discussed division III action, AA-1068, number is lifted. above, severability contains a clause that finding any Independently petition limits the effect of a other unconstitu filed court, tionality subjects expressed petitioners’ appeal to those not in district pe- and subject single provision the title. The trig- tition for review this generally gered requires process gave section 29 review arid incorporating respondent. that an act more than notice one thereof to We transfer wholly must be invalidated. petition Green this case to Cascade, City County N.W.2d at 887. the district court for Polk for fur- This rule is inapplicable appropriate where one of ther proceedings. Petitioners responsible filing any shall be for neces- papers payment any and

sary additional in district court.

costs

CASE TRANSFERRED TO DISTRICT

COURT. except

All Justices concur WOLLE and

CARTER, JJ., only in who concur divisions

I II and the result.

WOLLE, (concurring specially). Justice disposition

I concur in the result and

this case based on Divisions I and II of the

majority opinion. legislation here chal- Y,

lenged violates article of the

Iowa Constitution.

I would not address the Division III con-

stitutional issues because Divisions I and II entirely dispositive

are of the case.

CARTER, J., joins special concur-

rence. Spies,

Sharon A. Mellon of Mellon & City, petitioner-appellant. for Leff, Leff, Leff, Philip A. Leff of Hau- Traw, pert City, respondent-ap- & for pellee. In re MARRIAGE OF Steven Wirth Mary

JENSEN Louise Jensen. DONIELSON, P.J., Considered SCHLEGEL, HAYDEN, JJ. Upon the Petition of Steven Wirth Jensen, Petitioner-Appellant, SCHLEGEL, Judge. appeals Petitioner Steven Jensen the trial Jensen, Concerning Mary

And Louise alimony Mary court’s award of Jensen Respondent-Appellee. 598.21(3) pursuant to Iowa Code section No. 85-1633. (1985). He also contends that the trial Appeals Court of reserving jurisdiction Iowa. court erred in respect make future orders with Sept. support parties’ affirm son. We modify alimony award. Mary

Steven and married in 1962. were November, 1984, petition filed a Steven marriage. for dissolution Steven is employed at Proctor & Gamble and has a $2,500 gross approximately per income of month, $1,700 net. He has in this worked job years. twenty almost Steven old, forty-three years high school has

Case Details

Case Name: Western International & National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Kirkpatrick

Court Name: Supreme Court of Iowa

Date Published: Nov 25, 1986

Citation: 396 N.W.2d 359

Docket Number: 86-1061

Court Abbreviation: Iowa