Opinion ID: 1806459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: suppression of evidence and exemplary damages

Text: VIII. Plaintiffs' final complaint relates to the court's refusal to allow them to amend their petition to allege (1) willful suppression and destruction of evidence, and (2) exemplary damages therefor. Although this claim may well be subject to joinder under rules 22 and 28, R.C.P., the court was not compelled to allow amendment at the late date of request. In Mundy v. Olds, supra, we cited Ver Steegh v. Flaugh, 251 Iowa 1011, 103 N.W.2d 718, 724: `The trial court has a broad discretion in the matter of allowing amendments to pleadings, especially those to conform to the proof. We have frequently said that to allow such an amendment is the rule, to deny it is the exception.' Here the exception was wisely made. The jury had plenty of hotly contested issues without this addition. The claim was not so interwoven with plaintiffs' main case as to require joinder. If plaintiffs have a cause of action on this theory, a point we do not decide, they can seek remedy by independent action. Except for the issue considered in Division VIII, the case is remanded for retrial on all issuesReversed and remanded. All Justices concur, except UHLENHOPP, J., who takes no part.