Case Title: Harris v. Clinton Corn Processing Co.

Citation: 360 N.W.2d 812

Docket Number: 

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1985-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
360 N.W.2d 812 (1985) Carol Ann Moore HARRIS, Administratrix of the Estate of Clyde Horton Harris, Plaintiff-Movant, v. CLINTON CORN PROCESSING COMPANY, Defendant. No. 84-406. Supreme Court of Iowa. January 16, 1985. Charles D. Williams, Robert J. Walker, and E. Clifton Knowles, Nashville, Tenn., and Gary M. Lane of Berger & Lane, Davenport, for plaintiff-movant. Larry L. Shepler and Vicki L. Seeck of Betty, Neuman, McMahon, Hellstrom & Bittner, Davenport, for defendant. Considered by UHLENHOPP, P.J., and HARRIS, McCORMICK, McGIVERIN, and SCHULTZ, JJ. *813 McCORMICK, Justice. In this case we answer a question certified to us pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 684A (1983) by Chief Judge W.C. Stuart of the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa. The question is as follows: We respond that in the certified facts the action is governed by the Tennessee statute of limitations. Iowa Code section 614.1 (1983) provides in material part: Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-202 (1980) provides in material part: The certified facts are as follows: Thereafter, on December 14, 1982, plaintiff brought this action in United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against defendant Clinton, which again moved for summary judgment on the basis of Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-202. That motion is presently pending before this Court. The parties agree that under Iowa choice of law rules, the substantive law of Tennessee would apply to the merits of plaintiff's claims if the action is not time-barred. It is also undisputed that this action would not be time-barred under Iowa Code § 614.1(2). The question before the Court is whether, under Iowa choice of law rules, the Court should apply Tenn. Judge Stuart provided a helpful analysis of the question: Brooks v. Engel, 207 N.W.2d 110, 113 (Iowa 1973); see also Fabricius v. Horgen, 257 Iowa 268, 132 N.W.2d 410 (1965). In this case, the incident which gave rise to defendant's alleged liability occurred in Tennessee, and the parties agree that the substantive law of Tennessee would therefore apply. Assuming that Iowa would adopt the § 143 exception, the question becomes whether the Iowa Supreme Court would characterize Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-202 as barring the right upon which plaintiff seeks to sue, or merely the remedy. As noted in Comment (b) to Restatement § 143, "the forum will determine in accordance with its own conceptions *815 whether a statute of limitations of a second state bars the right and not merely the remedy." (Emphasis added.) It thus appears to this Court that there is a split of authority as to whether a statute of the Tennessee variety should be characterized as substantive or procedural, i.e., as barring the right and not merely the remedy. Moreover, none of the cases which have considered statutes of the Tennessee variety have done so in a choice of law context. In addition, it is possible that the Iowa Supreme Court would choose to adopt the unique approach of the New Jersey Supreme Court *816 in Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc., 63 N.J. 130, 305 A.2d 412 (1973), which holds that the statute of limitation of the state of otherwise applicable law should be applied when the forum has no substantial interest in the matter, regardless of whether the foreign statute of limitations is viewed as substantive or procedural. We believe this analysis accurately shows the current state of the law and the choices that confront us. The first choice is whether we will adopt the Restatement exception to our rule that Iowa statutes of limitations will govern actions brought in this state even when the action would be barred by the statute of limitations in the state whose substantive law applies. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 143 at 400 (1971) ("An action will not be entertained in another state if it is barred in the state of the otherwise applicable law by a statute of limitations which bars the right and not merely the remedy."). The exception arose from dissatisfaction with classifying statutes of limitations as procedural for choice of law purposes. The general rule that the forum will apply its own procedural law is based on a desire to permit local lawyers and judges to employ evidentiary and procedural rules they are familiar with, despite the possibility that litigants will shop around for a forum in which the procedural law is favorable. The rationale for the general rule is weakened when statutes of limitations are involved because they can be readily identified and applied. Furthermore the risk of forum-shopping is enhanced when the action would be barred by the statute of limitations in the state whose substantive law is applicable. Courts therefore devised the exception recognized in Restatement section 143. See Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Co., 220 F.2d 152, 154-55 (2d Cir.1955); Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc., 63 N.J. 130, 135-42, 305 A.2d 412, 415-18 (1973). We believe the Restatement exception is sound and adopt it for Iowa. Our second choice concerns whether the Tennessee statute of limitations should be characterized as barring the right and not merely the remedy for purposes of applying the Restatement exception. A Restatement comment points out that the forum state "will determine in accordance with its own conceptions whether a statute of limitations of a second state bars the right and not merely the remedy." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 143, comment b at 400 (1971). Usually the liability sought to be enforced must be statutory. Then the test is whether the statute has attributes that the forum would characterize as qualifications of the right or substantive in nature. Id., comment c at 400-01. The Tennessee statute fixes a four-year period after completion of certain improvements to real estate within which an action for injury or death must be brought. The period runs without regard to when the injury or death occurs. It is plainly a limitation on the right to bring an action under the Tennessee wrongful death statute. As Judge Stuart pointed out, most courts that have addressed the issue have characterized similar statutes as substantive. This is because the statutes operate as a grant of immunity to the protected persons upon the passing of the statutory period without regard to when an otherwise actionable injury might occur. See President and Directors of Georgetown College v. Madden, 505 F. Supp. 557, 571-75 (D.Md.1980), aff'd in pertinent part, 660 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1981). In contrast an ordinary statute of limitations like section 614.1(2) starts to run only after the cause of action accrues and never bars it from arising. See Burns v. Burns, 233 Iowa 1092, 1094, 11 N.W.2d 461, 462-63 (1943). *817 This court has held non-claim statutes which impose notice of claim as a condition precedent to the enforcement of a right are limitations on the right and not merely the remedy. See, e.g., Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. City of Osage, 176 N.W.2d 788, 791 (Iowa 1970). A stronger case for the distinction exists in the present situation when the mere passage of time can keep the right from ever arising. We find that the Tennessee statute of limitations has substantive attributes. It bars the right and not merely the remedy within the meaning of the Restatement exception. Therefore Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-202 (1980) governs in the present case. CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.