Opinion ID: 2052009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether Pro Tanto Credit was Proper for the Amount Rosendahl Repaid Waukon Auto.

Text: In its cross-appeal, Waukon Auto argues that the district court erred in allowing pro tanto credit for the amount Rosendahl had repaid Waukon Auto. It contends the Bank failed to show that compensation would be excessive in the absence of such credit. We agree. The pro tanto credit rule is summarized in Knauss v. City of Des Moines: We allow a dollar-for-dollar credit against a plaintiff's ... verdict for sums received in settlement from other tortfeasors. The rule is based on the principle that while a party is entitled to full compensation for his injuries, there can only be one satisfaction therefor. All payments in settlement of a claim, except payments in the nature of a gratuity or arising from separate contract, fall under this rule which is designed to prevent the unjust enrichment of a double recovery. 357 N.W.2d 573, 578 (Iowa 1984) (citations omitted). The party seeking pro tanto credit has the burden of proving the necessity for it. Id. Waukon Auto cites Knauss as an example of a case in which pro tanto credit was not proper. There, in a suit against only one of two alleged tortfeasors, the parties and the [trial] court [had] consciously narrowed and restricted plaintiff's proof on the issue of damages. The court had only allowed introduction of evidence regarding damages allegedly caused by the defendant; evidence of damages caused by the other alleged tortfeasor was not admitted. Id. at 578-79. In Knauss we affirmed the district court's decision not to allow pro tanto credit for a settlement amount received from the other tortfeasor. The basis of this holding was that the defendant had failed to show that without such credit, the plaintiff would have received more than full compensation. Id. at 578. Given the limited nature of the evidence introduced at trial, we were unwilling to assume that the damages attributable to the defendant plus the settlement amount would have been a greater sum than the total of the plaintiff's damages. Id. We distinguished cases in which pro tanto credit was proper by saying that in each [of the other cases] the jury determined the total amount of damages caused by joint tortfeasors. Id. (emphasis added). Here the record is clear that Waukon Auto sustained total losses of approximately $35,000. Of that amount, only $25,160.79 was attributable to checks cashed by the Bank. This last sum together with the $5800 payment Waukon Auto received from Rosendahl amounts to $30,960.79, an amount less than the total damages sustained by Waukon Auto. Clearly, the Bank failed to show that without crediting it with the $5800, Waukon Auto would receive more than full compensation for its total damages. The district court thus erred in applying the pro tanto credit rule.