Court Opinion

ID: 9670176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:16:22.730947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:22.150080
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(dissenting).
It is unjust and illogical to put a subrogee out of court merely for failing to bring an action in the name of a subrogor whose loss has been substantially but not entirely paid *32by the subrogee. In this situation both parties have an interest in a claim against a third party based upon the loss. See Russell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway, 195 Iowa 993, 1000-1001, 191 N.W. 806, 809, rehearing denied, 192 N.W. 267 (1923). Both interests are entitled to judicial protection.
Even though our cases hold that the action must be brought in the name of the subrogor to avoid splitting, we have not held before today that the action must be dismissed when it is brought in the name of the subrogee. We have held that the alleged tortfeasor may not object that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest when he is fully protected against further liability on the same cause of action. Grings v. Great Plains Gas Co., 260 Iowa 1309, 1320-1321, 152 N.W.2d 540, 546 (1967).
The purpose of the rule can be served without dismissing the subrogee’s action. On objection by defendant, the plaintiff should be required to join the absent party in the action pursuant to Iowa R.Civ.P. 25(a). This is the remedy fashioned in other jurisdictions including the federal courts under rules identical to Iowa R.Civ.P. 2. E.g., National Garment Co. v. New York, C. & St. L. R., 173 F.2d 32, 35 (8 Cir. 1949) (“On objection by the defendant, the absent party should be made a party plaintiff.”). See Annot., 13 A.L.R.3d 140,146-151 (1967).
This procedure has been required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a) since 1966. Incorporating the remedy previously delineated in case law, the rule provides in relevant part:
No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action b.y, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest, and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest.
The history of the provision is explained in 6 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, section 1541 (1971).
Joinder procedure does not make the sub-rogee an indispensable or necessary party. It merely recognizes that a subrogor who has not been fully paid for his loss is ordinarily a necessary party in an action against a third party.
I would reverse and remand to give United Security an opportunity to add Marilyn Johnson as a party in the present case. In that event other issues raised in the appeal should also be addressed for guidance of the trial court.