In this case, Roger and Denice Bergfeld sued Lockheed-Martin Corporation, a supplier of industrial sand, alleging that the company caused Roger Bergfeld's silicosis through its sales of bulk sand to his employer, John Deere Dubuque Works Foundry, between 1976 and 1983. The complaint included counts for failure to warn, strict liability, negligence, and loss of consortium, based on claims that Lockheed-Martin should have notified the foundry of recommended exposure limits below OSHA standards. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts. The ruling rested on the conclusion that no genuine issues of material fact existed because the foundry, as a sophisticated purchaser aware of silicosis risks through regulations, industry knowledge, and prior experience, bore the duty to warn its employees, and the sand supplier reasonably relied on the employer to fulfill that role under standards like Restatement Section 388.
The case involved plaintiff Marcus David Weems, an African American man, asserting federal and state civil rights claims against his former employer Federated Mutual Insurance for alleged racial discrimination in employment, including discriminatory discharge, along with state tort claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the company and two employees. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, citing untimeliness under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, procedural and jurisdictional defects, preemption of the emotional distress claim, and failure of the assault claim as a matter of law. Plaintiff conceded that his Iowa Civil Rights Act claims were untimely and did not resist summary judgment on those counts. The court recited the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and began analyzing the remaining federal discrimination claim for direct evidence of bias as well as the tort claims on substantive grounds.
The case concerned whether debtor Robert Pepmeyer's individual retirement annuity, valued at $31,000, qualified as an exempt asset under Iowa Code § 627.6(8)(f) when he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the annuity was not exempt. The court held that the statutory term 'individual retirement accounts' includes individual retirement annuities, based on parallel definitions in the Internal Revenue Code under 26 U.S.C. § 408 and legislative history showing an intent to provide uniform exemptions for federally authorized retirement plans.
The case involved JoDee Flockhart's claims against Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. for sexual discrimination under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, alleging constructive discharge due to ongoing sexual harassment by co-workers and supervisors as well as receiving lower pay than male peers for equal work. After a trial, the court issued findings of fact detailing specific incidents of touching, verbal abuse, and a hostile work environment in the supply department, along with the company's chain of command and notice issues. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her equal pay claim but found liability on the harassment and constructive discharge claims based on the pervasive conduct and inadequate employer response. The decision awarded damages accordingly under the applicable statutes.
In this diversity case, car dealerships Mike Finnin Ford and Mike Finnin Motors sued Automatic Data Processing (ADP) for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of warranty, alleging ADP failed to deliver promised RMS marketing software and other services under a 1997-1998 contract amendment, while ADP counterclaimed for defamation. ADP moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal or limits on the plaintiffs' claims. The court granted the motion in part on the contract and warranty claims, holding that contract provisions limited damages for the undelivered RMS software, that no training or consolidated accounting obligations were breached, and that warranty claims on accounting software failed. It denied summary judgment on the fraud claims, reasoning that evidence raised a genuine issue whether ADP knowingly misrepresented RMS availability at contracting, and it refused to limit fraud damages to contract terms because an independent duty not to induce agreements by fraud cannot be waived by contract language.
The case concerned whether an insurer's cancellation of a keyman life insurance policy held by a Chapter 11 debtor violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). The debtor had filed for bankruptcy in January 1998, borrowed against the policy's cash value later that year, missed subsequent premium payments, and the policy lapsed under its own terms after grace periods and conversion to term coverage, with the insured dying in December 1999. The bankruptcy court had granted partial summary judgment to the debtor, finding a stay violation, but the district court reversed on de novo review. It held that the cancellation resulted from the debtor's failure to pay premiums rather than any affirmative acts by the insurer that exercised control over estate property, and that 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) did not extend the policy's contractual grace periods. The case was remanded for remaining issues.
