Many small towns in Iowa are facing infrastructure issues, including old sewer lines that need to be updated. Oftentimes, there are not enough city funds to do the job correctly. In this case, a city contractor, in 1978, negligently reconnected a church’s sewer line during a water main installation project. When sewage backed up in the church in 2005, the church sustained $30,000 worth of damages. The church sued the city and the city filed a motion to dismiss the suit, asserting Iowa’s fifteen-year statute of repose. In Iowa, there is a fifteen-year window to file suit for damage done during improvements to real property. The city’s claim for dismissal of the case was denied.
At trial, the jury was asked to determine whether the City’s water main project was an improvement to real property. The church objected to this jury question and recommended that the jury determine whether “the negligent severing and reconnection of the plaintiff’s sewer line was an improvement to real property.” The jury found the city to be negligent and that the water main project was not an improvement to real property. However, the trial judge granted the city’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and found that the water main project was an improvement to real property, thus the statute of repose applied and the church’s suit was terminated.
On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court defined an improvement to real property as a “permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs.” Here, the parties agreed that the water main project was an improvement and that the cutting and reconnecting of the sewer line was not a part of the plan, but that the negligent reconnection was a consequence of the project. The Court, here, was asked to determine whether the reconnection was an “independent” improvement or a necessary part of the project. The Court determined that the damage done during the reconnection was not related to the water main itself. The reconnection was merely a repair and was not a part of the overall improvement project, because expert testimony demonstrated that it would have been possible to complete the project without touching the church’s sewer line. Therefore, the church’s claim is not barred by Iowa’s statute of repose. St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Webster City, 766 N.W.2d 796 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 2009).