Opinion
No. 4-572 / 03-1745
Filed January 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, James Scott, Judge.
Ray Gosch d/b/a Ray Gosch Trucking appeals following the entry of judgment on his action against Dick Juelfs. AFFIRMED.
Robert Kohorst of Kohorst, Early Louis, Harlan, for appellant.
Jeffrey Minnich and A. Eric Neu of Neu, Minnich, Comito Neu, P.C., Carroll, for appellee
Heard by Huitink P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Ray Gosch d/b/a Ray Gosch Trucking appeals following the entry of judgment on his action against Dick Juelfs. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On July 7, 1999, while driving a truck owned by his employer, Ray Gosch d/b/a Ray Gosch Trucking (Gosch), Merlyn Berens was involved in an accident with a car driven by Dick Juelfs. Berens was killed as a result of the accident, while the truck tractor he drove was a total loss and the trailer was damaged. After the accident, it took Gosch many months to hire a replacement for Berens.
On April 23, 2001, Gosch filed suit against Juelfs alleging that his negligence caused damage to Gosch's "truck and his business." At trial, Gosch attempted to introduce evidence of damages based on the lengthy time it took for him to hire a replacement driver. In particular, he sought recovery for lost profits occasioned by the inability to hire a driver during the remainder of the 1999 work year. The district court denied Gosch's attempt to introduce this evidence.
Following a trial, the district court entered a judgment on the jury verdict, finding Juelfs liable for $9,980 in tractor and trailer damages and awarding interest from the date of filing the action. Gosch appeals.
II. Scope of Review.
Our standard of review in this matter is for the correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. 6.4. We are not bound by the trial court's application of legal principles or its conclusions of law. Midwest Recovery Servs. v. Wolfe, 463 N.W.2d 73, 74 (Iowa 1990).
III. Damages.
In an offer of proof, Gosch testified that the accident happened during the "peak" of the rock-hauling season. He noted that because the job required specialized driving skills and because Gosch was busy as a driver himself, he was unable to hire a replacement driver during that peak season. He further offered evidence as to the expected loss of income during the remainder of 1999 because he was deprived of the services of Berens. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he never advertised for a new driver following the accident.
On appeal, Gosch maintains "the trial court erred in failing to allow testimony on the consequential damages . . . on the loss of driver and the time necessary to replace the driver. . . ." He believes this is evidence of "special damages," similar to that deemed recoverable in other Iowa cases. Juelfs counters that Gosch is impermissibly seeking recovery for damages due to the loss of his driver.
We conclude the district court correctly precluded Gosch from introducing evidence of lost profits. In Anderson Plasterers v. Meinecke, 543 N.W.2d 612, 615 (Iowa 1996), our supreme court held that employers have no claim for loss of an employee's time, expense of hiring a replacement worker, or increased workers' compensation premiums against a tortfeasor who injures an employee. There, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts section 766C (1979), the court adopted the modern prevailing view that there is no third-party liability to an employer in such a purely commercial relationship. Anderson Plasterers, 543 N.W.2d at 615. The court reasoned that any harm suffered by an employer was simply too remote to hold the tortfeasor responsible. Id. at 613. While we understand Gosch's difficulty in operating his business after losing a good driver, we nonetheless do not find support in our law to sustain his cause of action. We conclude the rule of law set forth in Anderson Plasterers unambiguously covers Gosch's claim. We therefore affirm the district court's refusal to allow Gosch to present evidence on this claim.
IV. Interest.
In its judgment, the district court ordered Juelfs to pay interest from April 23, 2001 (the date Gosch filed his petition), until the judgment was paid in full. On appeal, Gosch argues he is entitled to pre-filing interest. Specifically, he maintains that because his damages were "complete" and total upon the date of the accident, his interest should have run from the date of the accident, rather than the filing of this action.
Gosch directs the court to Iowa Code section 668.13 (2001), which provides that:
Interest shall be allowed on all money due on judgments and decrees on actions brought pursuant to this chapter, subject to the following.
1. Interest, except interest awarded for future damages, shall accrue from the date of the commencement of the action.
However, in Schimmelpfennig v. Eagle Nat. Assur. Corp., 641 N.W.2d 814, 816 (Iowa 2002), our supreme court determined that section 668.13(1) does not "govern the entitlement to interest from a point in time prior to the filing of a petition." The entitlement to pre-filing interest is governed by different principles, enunciated in Mrowka v. Crouse Cartage Co., 296 N.W.2d 782, 783 (Iowa 1980), as follows: "[I]nterest runs from the time money becomes due and payable, and in the case of unliquidated claims this is the date they become liquidated, ordinarily the date of judgment. . . . One exception to this rule is recognized in cases in which the entire damage for which recovery is demanded was complete at a definite time before the action was begun."
We conclude the exception to the general rule is not implicated in this case. Although the damage to Gosch's tractor all occurred on the date of the accident, there remained a substantial disagreement concerning the amount of those damages. At trial, Gosch maintained he was entitled to $14,000 in damages for the tractor, while Juelfs asserted it was only worth between $5,000 and $6,000. Ultimately, the jury assessed the value of the tractor at $7,000. Consequently, because Gosch's damages were both unliquidated and not "complete" until the date of the verdict, the district court correctly determined he was not entitled to pre-filing interest.