Court Opinion

ID: 9469962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:53:23.677496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:39.080428
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the reversal of the award of $50,603 in consequential damages. I would reverse the judgment n.o.v. on punitive damages and therefore dissent from that part of the opinion. In my opinion, the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to J & J, showed that Cargill knew that aldrin is a dangerous chemical, that aldrin contamination of feed grains could be a serious problem and cause the quarantine of animals fed contaminated feed, and that the FDA was investigating the Alta elevator as a possible source of aldrin contamination in connection with the quarantine of the livestock of another Car-gill customer. The evidence showed that, during its investigation of the Alta elevator, Cargill had received a high test result from a sample taken from one of the corn screenings storage bins at the Alta elevator. The evidence also showed that Cargill contacted its corn screenings customers, but intentionally misrepresented or concealed the status of its aldrin investigation and the severity of the contamination in order to protect its position in prospective litigation against another Cargill customer. I would conclude that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of legal malice: Cargill acted in willful disregard for the rights of another when it failed to adequately warn J & J by intentionally concealing material information about the aldrin investigation and contamination. I disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Cargill’s attempts to find out what had happened to the corn screenings precluded a finding of legal malice as a matter of law. I believe that Iowa would not hold as a matter of law that evidence of some remedial action taken by the defendant would bar the recovery of punitive damages. See McCarthy v. J.P. Cullen & Son Corp., 199 N.W.2d 362, 369 (Iowa 1972) (some construction); Claude v. Weaver Construction Co., 261 Iowa 1225, 158 N.W.2d 139, 146 (1968) (manifestations of solicitude, use of modern equipment, some effort to reduce nuisance). Further, Iowa case law suggests thát reliance upon the advice of counsel could not be a successful defense. Cf. Blessum v. Howard County Board of Supervisors, 295 N.W.2d 836, 849 (Iowa 1980) (breach of contract).