John C. Foley, Individually, and Interim Holdings, L.L.C. v. Argosy Gaming Company

Summary

The Supreme Court of Iowa answered four certified questions concerning the special-injury requirement for malicious prosecution. It held that Iowa continues to require a special injury and that nonrenewal of insurance, loss of financing, and stress with accompanying pain do not constitute special injury under the facts presented. The court therefore answered the certified questions and directed transmission of its opinion to the certifying federal court.

Holdings

1. Iowa continues to require a plaintiff in a malicious-prosecution action to prove arrest of the person, seizure of property, or another special injury that would not ordinarily result in similar litigation.
2. On the facts presented, nonrenewal of insurance, loss of or interference with financing, and stress with related neck and back pain do not constitute special injury because they are ordinary trouble and expense associated with litigation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Iowa retained its requirement that a plaintiff alleging malicious prosecution establish arrest, seizure of property, or another special injury.
2. Whether nonrenewal of insurance constitutes a special injury under Iowa malicious-prosecution law.
3. Whether loss of or interference with financing constitutes a special injury under Iowa malicious-prosecution law.
4. Whether stress accompanied by neck and back pain constitutes a special injury under Iowa malicious-prosecution law.

Disposition

other