Court Opinion

ID: 9667847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:56:17.807745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.167951
License: Public Domain

HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from division I and the result. Defendant Lauver should not be allowed to stand on rule 88, Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to “amend” a claim not previously made. This extraordinary effort was obviously made because it was too late to bring a cross-petition under rule 33, R.C.P. Defendant Lauver asserted in his motion to amend, and on appeal, he was proceeding under rule 88. He was improperly allowed thereunder to bring a new suit against the coparty whom he had not previously sued.
Rule 88 is inappropriate and inadequate for defendant’s purposes. Defendant had no existing pleading against the company which he could amend. The new suit, for lack of a better home, was appended to a pleading seeking other relief against other parties.
By the time defendant decided to bring a claim against the company the trial was already in its second day. It was obviously too late for defendant to proceed under rule 33 at that time because the rules clearly provide the company then could have the regular time to answer and to proceed as a new coparty. Defendant should not be al*348lowed to deprive the company of its time to answer and prepare a defense merely because it may have prepared to meet the same issues on other claims by other people in the suit. I believe the majority’s allowance is a misuse and misapplication of rule 88.
Since defendant did not seek to do so, it is probably unnecessary to speculate whether he could, on the second day of trial, have cross-petitioned under rule 33. But see Miller v. Farmers Cooperative Company, Lost Nation, 176 N.W.2d 832 (Iowa 1970); 61 Am.Jur.2d, Pleading, § 186, pp. 610-611.
I freely subscribe to the allowance of amendments to existing pleadings where it is in the interests of justice. But even if authority to amend meant authority to cross-petition and demand immediate answer it would abuse discretion to allow it here. The liberal provisions of rule 88 are aimed at the avoidance of injustice by entrapment or harmless oversight. They are not intended for use as an offensive weapon. The amendment here sets up an ambush.
The majority points out the new suit presented substantially the same issues the company was already prepared to meet to defend the claim of another party for contribution or indemnity. But the extent of that preparation, its nature, whether it might include taking of depositions, even selection of trial counsel, were all based on the posture of the suit as it went to trial. A party should have the right to calculate its risks on the basis of the suit existing at the commencement of trial. Here the trial process cleared the courtroom of most of the litigants and claims. To then allow this new, though admittedly similar, suit to be lodged against the unsuspecting remaining party goes beyond what I consider fair play and the proper bounds of discretion.
I would reverse.