Estate of Robert W. Pearson and Estate of Mary E. Pearson v. Interstate Power & Light Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Iowa held that a natural gas utility owed its customers a common-law duty to warn about dangers arising from the interaction between its gas and defective cobra connectors. The court held that the utility's filed tariff did not bar the estates' failure-to-warn claims and that the jury's awards for loss of parental consortium and predeath pain and suffering were not excessive. The court nevertheless reversed the entry of judgment for eighty-five percent of the damages and remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with its opinion.

Holdings

1. A supplier of natural gas owes a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care to warn customers of dangers inherent in using the gas with cobra connectors when the supplier knew or should have known of the danger and had no reason to believe the customers knew of it. The evidence supported the existence and breach of that duty.
2. The filed-tariff doctrine did not shield IES from liability for failing to warn of hazards inherent in its gas service. The tariff's provisions concerning customer equipment, inspections, and indemnity did not eliminate the common-law warning duty, and section 15.02 affirmatively required reasonable care to minimize hazards inherent in the gas service.
3. The jury's awards for loss of parental consortium and predeath physical and mental pain and suffering were not excessive, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial or remittitur.
4. IES was jointly and severally liable for eighty-five percent of the economic damages because it bore more than fifty percent of the assigned fault, but it was liable for only seventy percent of the noneconomic damages, including predeath pain and suffering and parental consortium.
5. The judgments could not be reduced by an offset for contribution because IES had not pleaded a counterclaim for contribution, and Iowa rules do not permit mutual setoff of claims and counterclaims absent agreement or statutory authorization.

Questions Presented

1. Whether IES owed the Pearsons a common-law duty to warn of dangers arising when its natural gas came into contact with a cobra connector.
2. Whether IES's filed tariff barred the estates' failure-to-warn claims under the filed-tariff doctrine.
3. Whether the jury's awards for loss of parental consortium and predeath physical and mental pain and suffering were excessive.
4. Whether the district court correctly entered judgment against IES for eighty-five percent of all damages, rather than eighty-five percent of economic damages and seventy percent of noneconomic damages.
5. Whether the judgments should be reduced by offsetting the estates' damages based on an unpleaded contribution claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded