 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
ALLEN v. ALLEN WATER & WASTEWATER6/19/1996
terpretation by the industrial commissioner when construing workers' compensation statutes.") On the issue of amount of indemnity, a question of fact, the district court must affirm the commissioner's findings if supported by substantial evidence. See Bearce, 465 N.W.2d at 534. In these situations, the agency is the fact finder and the district court sits as an appellate body for judicial review purposes. See id.; accord Winnebago Indus. v. Smith, 548 N.W.2d 582, 584 (Iowa 1996)
In cases involving independent actions filed in district court by a party or intervenor who seeks to enforce or defend against claimed indemnity rights, the district court presides over the action as a trial court to decide both questions of fact and questions of law. See Fisher, 485 N.W.2d at 628 ("Disputes [549 NW2d Page 520]
over the amount or validity of the right to indemnification have consistently [but not exclusively] been raised in district court."); accord Christensen v. Pocket Lounge, Inc., 519 N.W.2d 401, 401-02 (Iowa 1994); Shirley, 508 N.W.2d at 713; March v Pekin Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 852, 853 (Iowa 1991); Liberty Mut Ins. Co. v. Winter, 385 N.W.2d 529, 530 (Iowa 1986); Farris v General Growth Dev. Corp., 381 N.W.2d 625, 626 (Iowa 1986); Armour-Dial, Inc. v. Lodge & Shipley Co., 334 N.W.2d 142, 143 (Iowa 1983). In such cases, there is no agency fact finder and no judicial review process and, therefore, remand to the district court is the only jurisdictional possibility
The present case does not involve such a scenario. Rather, this case was originally presented by Allen and Kemper to an agency fact finder on several issues, including the amount of Kemper's indemnity entitlement. Although the case was not presented to the commissioner as a "right to indemnity" case (as both parties apparently agreed the right existed), the commissioner's final decision converted the dispute into such a case. The commissioner also did not find the amount of indemnification that might be due to Kemper
The district court's involvement in the present case, unlike its role in Christensen, Shirley, Fisher and many other cases, was that of an appellate body (not a fact finder) to review the agency's findings of fact pursuant to the substantial evidence standard of Iowa Code section 17A.19(8)(f). Since the district court was not the fact finder, we will not remand the case to that tribunal to determine the amount of Kemper's indemnity entitlement (which entitlement both parties now agree exists) Unlike in the Thomas case, Kemper's right to indemnity is not questioned on further review
III. Disposition. We affirm the judgment of the district court and the court of appeals decision to remand the present case to the industrial commissioner to determine the amount of Kemper's indemnity entitlement in further appropriate proceedings, including the receipt of any necessary evidence. After making this determination, the commissioner is instructed to enter an order accordingly. From this final agency action, either party has the right to seek judicial review before the district court pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.19
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|