Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Kum & Go, L.C.
Supreme Court of Iowa
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
- Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. FlintSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation v. Caterpillar Tractor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
- J'Aire Corp. v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- People Express Airlines, Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.