Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece
Headline: Iowa Supreme Court: State Not Liable for Trooper's Fatal Accident
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Iowa's sovereign immunity protects the state from lawsuits over a trooper's fatal accident, as no waiver was found and negligence claims lacked sufficient proof.
- Understand that sovereign immunity is a significant barrier to suing the state.
- If injured by a state employee, investigate if the state has waived immunity or if specific exceptions apply.
- Gather strong evidence of negligence in hiring, training, or supervision if pursuing a claim against the state.
Case Summary
Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece, decided by Iowa Supreme Court on April 4, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case concerns the State of Iowa's liability for the actions of a state trooper who, while responding to a call, caused a fatal accident. The plaintiff, representing the estate of the deceased, argued that the state was negligent in its hiring, training, and supervision of the trooper. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the state did not waive its sovereign immunity and that the plaintiff failed to establish a basis for liability under the relevant statutes. The court held: The State of Iowa did not waive its sovereign immunity regarding claims arising from the operation of a motor vehicle by a state employee, as the relevant statute requires a specific waiver for such actions, which was not present here.. The plaintiff failed to establish that the state's hiring, training, or supervision of the trooper constituted a breach of duty that proximately caused the decedent's death, as required to overcome the presumption of the state's immunity.. The court reiterated that governmental immunity is the general rule in Iowa, and exceptions must be clearly and specifically established by statute.. The plaintiff's argument that the trooper's actions fell outside the scope of his employment was rejected, as the trooper was on duty and responding to a call at the time of the accident.. The court found no evidence that the state acted with malice or in bad faith in its employment decisions concerning the trooper, which would be a basis for overcoming immunity.. This decision reinforces the broad protection of sovereign immunity for the State of Iowa, particularly concerning claims arising from employee actions in operating vehicles. It clarifies that plaintiffs must identify explicit statutory waivers and demonstrate a direct causal link between the state's alleged negligence and the harm suffered, making it difficult to sue the state for such incidents.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A family sued the State of Iowa after a state trooper caused a fatal accident. They claimed the state was responsible for hiring and training the trooper poorly. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state is protected by sovereign immunity and did not waive it in this situation. Therefore, the lawsuit against the state was dismissed.
For Legal Practitioners
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the State, holding that the plaintiff failed to overcome sovereign immunity. The court found no statutory waiver and insufficient evidence to establish negligence in hiring, training, or supervision, nor proximate causation. The plaintiff's claims under the Iowa Tort Claims Act were thus barred.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the application of sovereign immunity in Iowa. The plaintiff's claims against the state for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of a state trooper were dismissed because the court found no waiver of immunity and insufficient evidence to prove the state's negligence or its causal link to the fatal accident.
Newsroom Summary
The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot be sued for a fatal accident caused by a state trooper, citing sovereign immunity. The court found no evidence that the state waived its immunity or was negligent in its hiring or training of the officer involved.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The State of Iowa did not waive its sovereign immunity regarding claims arising from the operation of a motor vehicle by a state employee, as the relevant statute requires a specific waiver for such actions, which was not present here.
- The plaintiff failed to establish that the state's hiring, training, or supervision of the trooper constituted a breach of duty that proximately caused the decedent's death, as required to overcome the presumption of the state's immunity.
- The court reiterated that governmental immunity is the general rule in Iowa, and exceptions must be clearly and specifically established by statute.
- The plaintiff's argument that the trooper's actions fell outside the scope of his employment was rejected, as the trooper was on duty and responding to a call at the time of the accident.
- The court found no evidence that the state acted with malice or in bad faith in its employment decisions concerning the trooper, which would be a basis for overcoming immunity.
Key Takeaways
- Understand that sovereign immunity is a significant barrier to suing the state.
- If injured by a state employee, investigate if the state has waived immunity or if specific exceptions apply.
- Gather strong evidence of negligence in hiring, training, or supervision if pursuing a claim against the state.
- Consult with an attorney experienced in tort claims against government entities.
- Be aware that proving proximate cause between state negligence and your injury is crucial.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review for questions of law, and abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings. The court reviews legal conclusions regarding sovereign immunity and statutory interpretation de novo, meaning it gives no deference to the lower court's decision and analyzes the issue fresh. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, meaning the lower court's decision will be upheld unless it was clearly unreasonable.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Iowa Supreme Court on appeal from the District Court for Polk County. The District Court had granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Iowa and Trooper William L. Spece, dismissing the claims brought by Krystal Wagner, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen. Wagner appealed this decision.
Burden of Proof
The plaintiff, Krystal Wagner, bore the burden of proof to establish a basis for the State of Iowa's liability. The standard of proof required was the preponderance of the evidence, meaning Wagner had to show it was more likely than not that the State was negligent in its hiring, training, or supervision of Trooper Spece, and that this negligence caused Shane Jensen's death. However, the court found Wagner failed to meet this burden.
Legal Tests Applied
Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision
Elements: Duty: The State owed a duty of care to the public in hiring, training, and supervising its law enforcement officers. · Breach: The State breached this duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in its practices. · Causation: The State's breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. · Damages: The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the State's breach.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of duty. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the State's hiring, training, or supervision policies were inadequate or that the State knew or should have known of Trooper Spece's alleged unfitness for duty. The court also found no evidence that any alleged deficiencies directly caused the accident.
Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
Elements: The State of Iowa, like other governmental entities, is generally protected by sovereign immunity, meaning it cannot be sued without its consent. · Sovereign immunity can be waived by statute or by the State's own actions. · The plaintiff argued that the State waived its immunity through its actions or by statute.
The court held that the State of Iowa did not waive its sovereign immunity in this case. The court examined the relevant statutes and found no explicit waiver applicable to the circumstances. Furthermore, the court concluded that the State's general participation in activities, such as employing law enforcement officers, did not constitute an implied waiver of immunity for the specific tortious acts alleged.
Statutory References
| Iowa Code § 669.2(1) | Definition of 'state' — This statute defines 'state' for the purposes of the Iowa Tort Claims Act, which governs claims against the state. The court's analysis of sovereign immunity hinged on the interpretation of this and related statutes. |
| Iowa Code § 669.14 | Exceptions to liability — This section outlines specific circumstances under which the state is not liable, even if a tort is committed by an employee. The court considered whether any exceptions applied to shield the state from liability in this case. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"The State of Iowa has not waived its sovereign immunity for the claims asserted in this case."
"The plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the State's alleged negligence in hiring, training, or supervision of Trooper Spece."
"To overcome sovereign immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate a specific statutory waiver or that the State's conduct falls within an exception to immunity."
Remedies
Affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Iowa and Trooper William L. Spece.Dismissed the claims against the State of Iowa.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Understand that sovereign immunity is a significant barrier to suing the state.
- If injured by a state employee, investigate if the state has waived immunity or if specific exceptions apply.
- Gather strong evidence of negligence in hiring, training, or supervision if pursuing a claim against the state.
- Consult with an attorney experienced in tort claims against government entities.
- Be aware that proving proximate cause between state negligence and your injury is crucial.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are involved in a car accident caused by a state employee driving a state vehicle.
Your Rights: Your right to sue the state for damages may be limited by sovereign immunity laws. You must prove the state waived its immunity or acted negligently in hiring/training the employee, and that this negligence directly caused your injuries.
What To Do: Consult with an attorney immediately to understand the specific laws regarding sovereign immunity in your state and the viability of your claim. Gather all evidence related to the accident and the state employee's actions.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for the state to be sued if a government employee causes an accident?
Depends. States generally have sovereign immunity, protecting them from lawsuits. However, this immunity can be waived by statute, or if the employee's actions fall under specific exceptions outlined in state law, such as certain types of negligence in hiring or supervision.
This varies significantly by state. Iowa, as seen in this case, maintains strong sovereign immunity protections unless explicitly waived.
Practical Implications
For Victims of accidents involving state employees
It is significantly harder to sue the state government for damages caused by its employees due to sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs must overcome a high legal bar, requiring proof of a specific waiver of immunity or clear negligence by the state in its employment practices that directly led to the harm.
For State government agencies
The ruling reinforces the protections afforded by sovereign immunity, making it more difficult for individuals to hold state agencies liable for employee actions. This may reduce the perceived risk of litigation for certain state employment decisions.
Related Legal Concepts
Frequently Asked Questions (36)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (8)
Q: What is Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece about?
Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece is a case decided by Iowa Supreme Court on April 4, 2025.
Q: What court decided Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece?
Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece was decided by the Iowa Supreme Court, which is part of the IA state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece decided?
Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece was decided on April 4, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece?
The citation for Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is sovereign immunity in Iowa?
Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects the state government from being sued without its consent. In Iowa, this immunity is strong unless a specific statute explicitly waives it.
Q: What did the court decide in Wagner v. State of Iowa?
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the State of Iowa did not waive its sovereign immunity and that the plaintiff failed to prove the state's negligence in hiring, training, or supervision of the trooper.
Q: What is the role of Trooper William L. Spece in this case?
Trooper Spece was the state trooper whose actions allegedly caused the fatal accident. The lawsuit sought to hold the State of Iowa liable for his conduct.
Q: What is the difference between suing the state and suing a private company?
Suing the state is significantly harder due to sovereign immunity, which private companies do not possess. You must meet stricter legal requirements and deadlines when suing a government entity.
Legal Analysis (14)
Q: Is Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece published?
Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece. Key holdings: The State of Iowa did not waive its sovereign immunity regarding claims arising from the operation of a motor vehicle by a state employee, as the relevant statute requires a specific waiver for such actions, which was not present here.; The plaintiff failed to establish that the state's hiring, training, or supervision of the trooper constituted a breach of duty that proximately caused the decedent's death, as required to overcome the presumption of the state's immunity.; The court reiterated that governmental immunity is the general rule in Iowa, and exceptions must be clearly and specifically established by statute.; The plaintiff's argument that the trooper's actions fell outside the scope of his employment was rejected, as the trooper was on duty and responding to a call at the time of the accident.; The court found no evidence that the state acted with malice or in bad faith in its employment decisions concerning the trooper, which would be a basis for overcoming immunity..
Q: Why is Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece important?
Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece has an impact score of 30/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the broad protection of sovereign immunity for the State of Iowa, particularly concerning claims arising from employee actions in operating vehicles. It clarifies that plaintiffs must identify explicit statutory waivers and demonstrate a direct causal link between the state's alleged negligence and the harm suffered, making it difficult to sue the state for such incidents.
Q: What precedent does Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece set?
Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece established the following key holdings: (1) The State of Iowa did not waive its sovereign immunity regarding claims arising from the operation of a motor vehicle by a state employee, as the relevant statute requires a specific waiver for such actions, which was not present here. (2) The plaintiff failed to establish that the state's hiring, training, or supervision of the trooper constituted a breach of duty that proximately caused the decedent's death, as required to overcome the presumption of the state's immunity. (3) The court reiterated that governmental immunity is the general rule in Iowa, and exceptions must be clearly and specifically established by statute. (4) The plaintiff's argument that the trooper's actions fell outside the scope of his employment was rejected, as the trooper was on duty and responding to a call at the time of the accident. (5) The court found no evidence that the state acted with malice or in bad faith in its employment decisions concerning the trooper, which would be a basis for overcoming immunity.
Q: What are the key holdings in Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece?
1. The State of Iowa did not waive its sovereign immunity regarding claims arising from the operation of a motor vehicle by a state employee, as the relevant statute requires a specific waiver for such actions, which was not present here. 2. The plaintiff failed to establish that the state's hiring, training, or supervision of the trooper constituted a breach of duty that proximately caused the decedent's death, as required to overcome the presumption of the state's immunity. 3. The court reiterated that governmental immunity is the general rule in Iowa, and exceptions must be clearly and specifically established by statute. 4. The plaintiff's argument that the trooper's actions fell outside the scope of his employment was rejected, as the trooper was on duty and responding to a call at the time of the accident. 5. The court found no evidence that the state acted with malice or in bad faith in its employment decisions concerning the trooper, which would be a basis for overcoming immunity.
Q: What cases are related to Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece?
Precedent cases cited or related to Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece: Estate of Smith v. State, 785 N.W.2d 719 (Iowa 2010); Conine v. State, 776 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2009); Christensen v. Iowa Bd. of Parole, 700 N.W.2d 350 (Iowa 2005).
Q: Can I sue the State of Iowa if a state trooper causes an accident?
Generally, it is very difficult due to sovereign immunity. You must prove the state waived its immunity or that the state was negligent in hiring, training, or supervising the trooper, and that this negligence directly caused the accident.
Q: What kind of evidence is needed to sue the state for an employee's actions?
You need evidence showing the state breached a duty of care, such as inadequate hiring or training policies, and that this breach was the proximate cause of your injuries. You also need to show the state waived its sovereign immunity.
Q: Did the court find the state negligent?
No, the court found that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the State of Iowa was negligent in its hiring, training, or supervision of Trooper Spece, nor that any alleged negligence caused the fatal accident.
Q: What is the Iowa Tort Claims Act?
The Iowa Tort Claims Act is the law that governs lawsuits against the state government. It outlines when the state can be sued and under what conditions, including provisions related to sovereign immunity.
Q: What happens if a state employee causes an accident while off-duty?
Generally, sovereign immunity is more likely to apply if the employee was not acting within the scope of their employment. The plaintiff would still need to overcome immunity and prove specific state negligence.
Q: What if the trooper violated department policy?
Violating policy might be evidence of negligence, but the plaintiff must still prove that the state's hiring, training, or supervision was negligent and that this negligence caused the accident, and overcome sovereign immunity.
Q: What is 'proximate cause' in this context?
Proximate cause means the state's alleged negligence must have been a direct and foreseeable cause of Shane Jensen's death. The plaintiff had to show a clear link between the state's actions (or inactions) and the accident.
Q: Can I sue the trooper directly?
While the lawsuit named Trooper Spece, the primary focus regarding liability was on the State of Iowa due to sovereign immunity protections. Claims against individual officers can be complex and may also face immunity defenses.
Practical Implications (4)
Q: How does Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece affect me?
This decision reinforces the broad protection of sovereign immunity for the State of Iowa, particularly concerning claims arising from employee actions in operating vehicles. It clarifies that plaintiffs must identify explicit statutory waivers and demonstrate a direct causal link between the state's alleged negligence and the harm suffered, making it difficult to sue the state for such incidents. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: How long do I have to file a lawsuit against the state?
There are specific notice and filing deadlines under the Iowa Tort Claims Act. It is crucial to consult an attorney promptly to ensure these deadlines are met.
Q: What happens if I win a lawsuit against the state?
If successful, the court could order the state to pay damages. However, winning against the state is challenging due to sovereign immunity, as demonstrated in this case where the plaintiff did not prevail.
Q: What are the practical steps if I believe a state employee caused my injury?
First, seek medical attention. Second, preserve all evidence. Third, consult an attorney specializing in personal injury and government liability immediately due to strict notice and filing requirements.
Historical Context (2)
Q: Is there any historical basis for sovereign immunity?
Yes, sovereign immunity has roots in English common law, stemming from the principle that 'the king can do no wrong.' This doctrine has been adopted and modified by legal systems worldwide, including in the United States.
Q: How has sovereign immunity evolved in Iowa?
Iowa has largely retained sovereign immunity, but the Iowa Tort Claims Act created specific avenues for suing the state, while also codifying exceptions and limitations, reflecting a balance between governmental protection and citizen recourse.
Procedural Questions (5)
Q: What was the docket number in Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece?
The docket number for Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece is 22-1625. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What does 'de novo review' mean for this case?
De novo review means the Iowa Supreme Court looked at the legal issues, like sovereign immunity, without giving any deference to the lower court's decision. They reviewed the law fresh.
Q: What is the standard of review used by the Iowa Supreme Court?
The court uses 'de novo' review for legal questions like sovereign immunity, meaning they review the law without deference to the lower court. They use 'abuse of discretion' for evidentiary rulings.
Q: What is a 'summary judgment'?
Summary judgment is a court decision that resolves a lawsuit without a trial when there are no significant factual disputes and one party is clearly entitled to win based on the law. The lower court granted it to the state here.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Estate of Smith v. State, 785 N.W.2d 719 (Iowa 2010)
- Conine v. State, 776 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2009)
- Christensen v. Iowa Bd. of Parole, 700 N.W.2d 350 (Iowa 2005)
Case Details
| Case Name | Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece |
| Citation | |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-04-04 |
| Docket Number | 22-1625 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 30 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the broad protection of sovereign immunity for the State of Iowa, particularly concerning claims arising from employee actions in operating vehicles. It clarifies that plaintiffs must identify explicit statutory waivers and demonstrate a direct causal link between the state's alleged negligence and the harm suffered, making it difficult to sue the state for such incidents. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Sovereign immunity of the State of Iowa, Negligent hiring, training, and supervision of state employees, Vicarious liability of the state for employee actions, Proximate cause in tort claims against the state, Waiver of sovereign immunity statutes, Scope of employment for state troopers |
| Jurisdiction | ia |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Krystal Wagner, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Sovereign immunity of the State of Iowa or from the Iowa Supreme Court:
-
CMT Highway, LLC, an Iowa Limited Company v. Logan Contractors Supply, Inc., an Iowa Corporation
Contractor Breached Agreement by Refusing to Deliver Asphalt at Contracted PriceIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Matthew Lewis Hunter v. City of Des Moines, Iowa; and Des Moines Police Bargaining Unit, Jane Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, and John Doe No. 5
Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Police in Excessive Force CaseIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Sarah Kingsbury v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa
Prior Injury Not Scheduled: Second Injury Fund Not Liable for Additional BenefitsIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Worthwhile Wind, LLC v. Worth County Board of Supervisors
Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Wind Farm Permit Denial for Lack of FindingsIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
City of Davenport v. Office of Auditor of State of Iowa
Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Auditor's Broad Investigative PowersIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Dr. Paul R. Gausman v. Sioux City Community School District, Daniel D. Greenwell, Jan George, Taylor Goodvin, and Bob Michaelson
Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment for School District in Defamation CaseIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
State of Iowa v. Dillon Michael Heiller
Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Implied Consent Law Against Fourth Amendment ChallengeIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Timothy Kono v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Iowa, LLC d/b/a Classic Builders
Homeowner's Breach of Contract and Fraud Claims Against Builder DismissedIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-10