Opinion ID: 2116413
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We first believe it helpful to clarify the nature of the claims asserted by Keystone and Merchants against the City.

Text: In its petition, Keystone alleged that the City was negligent and that it breached its contractual obligations to the public, made through the Corps of Engineers, by failing to properly maintain and utilize the local flood control project of which plaintiff was a third party beneficiary. Keystone sought damages for injury to its property. Merchants did not assert a breach of contractual obligation on the part of the City in its petition but did allege the City's negligence in fulfilling its agreement to maintain and operate the flood project proximately caused their property damage. In both cases, the district courts concluded that plaintiffs' claims were basically claims in tort because plaintiffs alleged that the City neglected a duty imposed by contract. We conclude, as did the district court in each case, that the substance of plaintiffs' claim against the City is one of negligence. We therefore need not address Keystone's argument that the City waived any immunity by entering into the agreement with the Corps of Engineers regarding maintenance of the flood protection project. See Triple C Railcar Serv. v. City of Wilmington, 630 A.2d 629, 634 (Del.1993) (property owner was not a third-party beneficiary at the time the city received federal grant and assumed obligation to maintain tide gates free of debris and thus property owner had no standing to sue the city under Delaware municipal tort claims act). B. With respect to plaintiffs' negligence claim, the district court in the Keystone case concluded that the City breached no duty. In the Merchants case, however, the district court concluded that a question of fact existed in that regard. Without unduly lengthening this opinion by discussing the extensive summary judgment record, we conclude that a fact question exists concerning whether the City breached a duty owed to plaintiffs. See Iowa R.App. P. 14(f)(10) (Generally, questions of negligence,... and proximate cause are for the jury; it is only in exceptional cases that they may be decided as matters of law.). Accordingly, the district court in the Merchants case correctly overruled the City's motion for summary judgment and erred in sustaining the City's summary judgment motion in the Keystone case on that basis.