Opinion ID: 2207277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Submit Additional Legal Theories Concerning Defendant's Liability.

Text: We first consider plaintiffs' contention that the district court erred in failing to submit additional legal theories under which the jury might find the defendant liable. This argument pertains, inter alia, to the proffered theories of res ipsa loquitur, statutory violation, strict liability in tort, tortious interference with a business relationship, and tortious refusal to settle. The defendant argues that plaintiffs may not predicate reversible error on liability issues when the verdict of the jury was in his favor on the matter of liability. We agree. The district court submitted the issue of defendant's liability under a single theory of specific negligence. The jury found that the defendant was negligent and awarded damages. This court has consistently held that errors against a party are cured by a verdict in that party's favor unless the error goes to the amount of damages. Nassif v. Pipkin, 178 N.W.2d 334, 337 (Iowa 1970); Edgren v. Scandia Coal Co., 171 Iowa 459, 474, 151 N.W. 519, 524-25 (1915); Thew v. Miller, 73 Iowa 742, 743, 36 N.W. 771, 772 (1888). Apart from the question of punitive damages, which we consider separately, plaintiffs make no suggestion that the elements of damage that would have been recoverable under the theories of liability not submitted would have differed from those elements of damage recoverable under their negligence claim. Plaintiffs assert that certain of their pleaded causes of action, if sustained, would have permitted the jury to award exemplary damages. In considering the facts on which plaintiffs' claim is predicated, we do not believe that this contention is correct. The evidence revealed that the conduct which caused the voltage irregularity was (a) defendant's use of split bolt connectors instead of compression connectors to connect a grounding jumper wire to the main neutral line, and (b) defendant's failure to discover the dangerous situation which that omission presented. We have said that an award of punitive damages is not appropriate unless it is established that the defendant acted with actual or legal malice. Barnhouse v. Hawkeye State Bank, 406 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1987). In applying this rule, we have held that [a]ctual malice is shown by such things as personal spite, hatred, or ill will. Legal malice is established by showing wrongful conduct committed with a willful or reckless disregard for the rights of another. More than mere negligence must be shown. Id. at 184; Klooster v. North Iowa State Bank, 404 N.W.2d 564, 572 (Iowa 1987). Defendant's conduct was not sufficiently egregious to permit the recovery of punitive damages. The trial court correctly refused to submit any claim of punitive damages to the jury. Plaintiffs urge that defendant's conduct should be measured not only by the acts which caused the voltage irregularity but also by the conduct employed in settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. We cannot agree that defendant's conduct with respect to settlement, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, permits a recovery of punitive damages. This court has previously held that a third-party claimant may not maintain a bad-faith tort action against an insurer of one who has tortiously damaged that claimant. See Long v. McAllister, 319 N.W.2d 256, 262 (Iowa 1982). It appears that the actions of which plaintiffs complain were primarily those of defendant's liability insurance carrier. We do not believe that the insured may be vicariously liable for such actions under circumstances in which the insurer would not be liable under the holding in Long. Plaintiffs' assignments of error pertaining to evidentiary issues relating to liability (such as the exclusion of the adjuster's concession of liability) and the district court's refusal to grant partial summary judgment or partial directed verdict on the liability issues are also subject to the rule that errors against a party are cured by a verdict in that party's favor. Consequently, we need not consider these claims on the merits.