Dyer v. National By-Products Inc.
380 N.W.2d 732 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Forbearance from asserting a claim, which proves to be invalid, constitutes sufficient consideration to support a contract of settlement so long as the forbearing party asserts the claim in good faith.
Facts:
- On October 29, 1981, Dale Dyer, an employee of National By-Products, lost his right foot in a job-related accident.
- National By-Products placed Dyer on a paid leave of absence until August 16, 1982, when he returned to his original job as a foreman.
- Dyer believed he had a valid tort claim against his employer for his personal injury.
- Dyer alleged that he forbore from litigating his claim in exchange for a promise from National By-Products that he would have lifetime employment.
- On March 11, 1983, National By-Products indefinitely laid off Dyer.
Procedural Posture:
- Dale Dyer filed a lawsuit against National By-Products in an Iowa district court (trial court) for breach of an oral contract for lifetime employment.
- National By-Products moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no consideration for the alleged contract.
- The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling that because Dyer's sole remedy was workers' compensation, his forbearance of a non-viable tort claim was not sufficient consideration.
- Dyer (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of 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 an employee's good faith forbearance from litigating a personal injury claim, which is later determined to be invalid because workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy, constitute sufficient consideration for an employer's alleged promise of lifetime employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Schultz, J.
Yes. Good faith forbearance to litigate a claim, even if it proves to be invalid, is sufficient consideration to uphold a contract of settlement. The court adopted the modern approach articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 74, which holds that forbearance from asserting an invalid claim is consideration if the forbearing party believes that the claim may be fairly determined to be valid. The court reasoned that public policy favors the settlement of controversies, and this policy would be defeated if a party could later litigate the validity of the compromised claim to undo the settlement. The requirement of good faith sufficiently protects against vexatious litigation or claims asserted merely for their 'nuisance value.' The court explicitly overruled its prior holdings that required a forborne claim to have some objective legal merit. While the invalidity of the claim itself is not determinative, it is relevant evidence in assessing whether the claimant's belief in its validity was held in good faith.
Analysis:
This decision aligns Iowa contract law with the modern trend and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts by shifting the focus from the objective legal validity of a forborne claim to the subjective good faith of the claimant. It strengthens the finality of settlement agreements, promoting out-of-court resolutions by preventing parties from later voiding a compromise by proving the original claim was baseless. This ruling makes the claimant's state of mind a critical factual issue in such disputes, meaning that even if a claim is legally unfounded, a case may proceed to trial to determine if the claimant's belief in the claim was honestly held.
Unlock the full brief for Dyer v. National By-Products Inc.