Dealers Hobby, Inc. v. Marie Ann Linn Realty Co.
No Reporter Information Provided (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages for a landlord's breach of an express covenant to repair are limited to the tenant's actual losses and are recoverable only from the time an injury occurs, not retroactively for a period when a latent defect was unknown to both parties and caused no harm.
Facts:
- On June 10, 1959, Dealers Hobby, Inc. leased a warehouse under construction from Marie Ann Linn Realty Company for a 15-year term for storage purposes.
- The lease included a clause requiring the landlord, Marie Ann Linn Realty Company, to maintain the roof and exterior structure in good repair.
- For nearly 14 years, Dealers Hobby, Inc. occupied the warehouse without incident.
- On April 30, 1973, after a heavy rain, a small portion of the warehouse roof collapsed, causing damage to property stored by Dealers Hobby, Inc.
- Prior to the roof collapse, neither Dealers Hobby, Inc. nor Marie Ann Linn Realty Company was aware of any structural defects in the building.
- A subsequent inspection by city officials revealed that the building did not comply with the city building code in several particulars.
- Despite the collapse, Dealers Hobby, Inc. continued to use the vast majority of the warehouse during the 18-day repair period and subsequently renewed the lease.
Procedural Posture:
- Dealers Hobby, Inc. (plaintiff tenant) sued Marie Ann Linn Realty Company (defendant landlord) in an Iowa trial court for breach of the lease agreement, seeking damages for its property and for retroactive diminution of rental value.
- The landlord filed a cross-petition against Abild Construction Co., the contractor.
- The contractor, in turn, filed a cross-petition against the architects, Savage and Ver Ploeg.
- The landlord and contractor filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the tenant's claim for retroactive diminution of rental value.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
- Subsequently, the defendants paid the tenant $16,921.41 to cover its actual property damages and incidental costs.
- The trial court then dismissed the remaining parts of the tenant's petition as moot.
- Dealers Hobby, Inc. (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a commercial tenant's recovery for a landlord's breach of an express warranty to repair include damages for the retroactive diminution of rental value for the period prior to the discovery of the defect and the resulting injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Chief Justice
No. A commercial tenant's recovery for a landlord's breach of an express warranty to repair does not include damages for the retroactive diminution of rental value for the period prior to the discovery of the defect and the resulting injury. The fundamental principle of damages is compensation for actual loss, intended to place the injured party in the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred. The breach of the express covenant to repair did not happen until the roof collapsed on April 30, 1973, as neither party was aware of any defect before that date. To award damages for the nearly 14-year period where the tenant had full use of the premises and suffered no harm would contravene the basic tenets of damages, as a 'peril proceeding injury, of which plaintiff is ignorant, is not a proper element of damages.' The plaintiff's actual losses—damage to merchandise, cleanup costs, and alternate rental expenses—were the proper measure of recovery and have already been compensated.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that in commercial leases, the right to damages for a breach of the landlord's duty to repair is not triggered by the mere existence of a latent defect but by the actual injury resulting from it. By refusing to award damages retroactively for a period where the tenant had unimpeded use of the property, the court prevents tenants from receiving a windfall and reinforces the principle that contract damages are compensatory, not punitive. This holding distinguishes commercial lease disputes from the 'implied warranty of habitability' cases in the residential context, where defects may render a dwelling uninhabitable from the outset.
