Opinion ID: 1989670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hertz.

Text: Shivvers challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to Hertz on her negligence claim. It is well-established an auctioneer operating as an agent for a disclosed principal incurs no liability on a sales contract. Moser v. Thorp Sales Corp., 256 N.W.2d 900, 907 (Iowa 1977); Barrett v. Rumeliote, 256 Iowa 1, 6, 126 N.W.2d 322, 325 (1964); 7 Am.Jur.2d Auctions & Auctioneers § 82 (1997); 7A C.J.S. Auctions & Auctioneers § 23(b) (1980); Annotation, Liability of Auctioneer or Clerk to Buyer as to Title, Condition, or Quality of Property Sold, 80 A.L.R.2d 1237, 1238 (1961). Because Hertz disclosed that the estate was its principal, the district court was correct in concluding that it had no liability to Shivvers on a contract theory. Shivvers does not challenge that ruling on this appeal but contends that the presence of a disclosed principal provides no defense to Hertz with respect to the tort theories of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court believed that Hertz' status as an agent for a fully disclosed principal also relieved it of any liability to Shivvers on her negligence and breach-of-fiduciary-duty theories. We are unable to accept that conclusion. The rule of nonliability that exists in a fully disclosed principal context only pertains to the contract liability of the agent. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 320 (1958) (a person making a contract with another as agent for a disclosed principal does not become a party to the contract). This rule has no application in determining the agent's tort liability when that liability is based on the agent's own conduct. In reversing a judgment for the agent of a disclosed principal in a tort action, a federal appellate court stated the distinction as follows: Though the district court correctly held that corporate officers would not be liable for a corporate contractual obligation, this was not such an obligation. Corporate officers may of course be liable jointly and severally with their corporation for obligations arising out of tortious conduct of the officers.... Sit-Set, A.G. v. Universal Jet Exch., Inc., 747 F.2d 921, 929 (4th Cir.1984). That is the position espoused in the Restatement (Second) of Agency section 343 as to the tort liability of agents generally. Although we disagree with the district court's conclusions concerning the effect of the agency relationship on Hertz' tort liability, we uphold the dismissal of the negligence and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims on another theory. In its motion for summary judgment, Hertz also urged that the negligence and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims that Shivvers is now pursuing against it are the same claims that were advanced against its principals, the Zenor interests, in the Boone County litigation and were dismissed with prejudice. The Zenors stood in privity with Hertz and would have been liable to Shivvers if Hertz was liable. The Boone County litigation was terminated by a judgment requiring that all of Shivvers's claims for money damages be dismissed with prejudice. We recognized in Kimmel v. Iowa Realty Co., 339 N.W.2d 374, 378 (Iowa 1983) (interpreting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 51(1) (1982)), claim preclusion extends to nonparties in such vicarious liability relationships. Hertz' motion for summary judgment as to Shivvers's negligence claim and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim should have been sustained on that ground. Although the judgment in the Boone County litigation was pursuant to a settlement agreement, consent judgments that are a bar to refiling are binding on both the parties and their privies. Hoth v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 577 N.W.2d 390, 391-92 (Iowa 1998); State ex rel. Casas v. Fellmer, 521 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Iowa 1994). In the defensive use of claim preclusion, the status test for privity is broadly applied if the party against whom claim preclusion is invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim. Penn v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 577 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Iowa 1998). We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. AFFIRMED. All justices concur except SNELL, J., McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS and NEUMAN, JJ., who concur specially.