Legal Opinion · Dissent

Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Kum & Go, L.C.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided July 8, 2011No. 09–0905Published

1DissentWiggins, Justice

I dissent. While I agree with the majority that Annett Holdings, Inc. was not a third-party beneficiary, I cannot support the conclusion that we should bar its claim because of the economic loss rule. To understand the basis for my dissent, I believe it is first necessary to review the development of the economic loss rule in Iowa.

Iowa appeared to adopt the economic loss rule in Nebraska Innkeepers, Inc. v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Corp., 345 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 1984). There, a group of Nebraska business owners sued Pittsburgh-Des Moines for purely economic loss due to negligence of Pittsburgh-Des…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. FlintSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation v. Caterpillar Tractor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
  4. J'Aire Corp. v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. People Express Airlines, Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API