GAILA M. EHLERS, Plaintiff, vs. GERALD K. SCHIMMELPFENNIG, Defendant-Appellant, vs. EAGLE NATIONAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, n/k/a CAMERON MUTUAL INS. CO., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-112 / 12-0928 Filed May 15, 2013 GAILA M. EHLERS, Plaintiff, vs. GERALD K. SCHIMMELPFENNIG, Defendant-Appellant, vs. EAGLE NATIONAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, n/k/a CAMERON MUTUAL INS. CO., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Dan F. Morrison, Judge. Gerald K. Schimmelpfennig appeals from the district court ruling on his indemnification request. AFFIRMED. Gregg Pieper, Iowa City, for appellant. Michael M. Moreland and Heather M. Simplot of Harrison, Moreland, Webber & Simplot, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellee. Considered by Eisenhauer, C.J., and Danilson and Bower, JJ. 2 BOWER, J. Gerald K. Schimmelpfennig appeals from the district court ruling on his indemnification request. Schimmelpfennig argues that the district court failed to award attorney fees, and interest. Schimmelpfennig also requests appellate attorney fees. Because we find that all amounts owed have been paid, we affirm. I. Background Proceedings and Facts This dispute makes its second appearance before this court, and has once appeared before our supreme court. At issue is the payment of attorney fees and interest due under the indemnification clause of an insurance contract. The parties have been adversaries since 1997. Schimmelpfennig was, along with Cameron Mutual Insurance Company, a defendant in the initial action.1 The first appeal, to this court, resulted in the grant of a new trial to the plaintiff, reversed a ruling granting a new trial to Cameron Mutual, and assessed costs of the appeal to Schimmelpfennig. Cameron Mutual filed a motion to determine the amount of attorney fees owed. The district court determined the amount to be $14,673. After a motion to reconsider was denied, Schimmelpfennig appealed to our supreme court which issued a detailed opinion concerning the amounts owed. Cameron Mutual argues they have overpaid the amount ordered by our supreme court. Nearly ten years after the opinion, Schimmelpfennig filed a motion requesting indemnification for unpaid fees and interest. The district court denied 1 Eagle National Assurance Corporation, the defendant in the original action, is now known as Cameron Mutual. Cameron Mutual is the party to this action. 3 the motion, finding no basis to grant the request. After a motion to reconsider was denied, Schimmelpennig appealed. II. Standard of Review We review the question of interest for errors at law. Opperman v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 652 N.W.2d 139, 142 (Iowa 2002). III. Discussion Schimmelpfennig s arguments on appeal are unclear and difficult to follow.2 Though he fails to set forth a concise statement of his argument, it appears his contention is that the district court erred in failing to order an additional award of interest since our supreme court s opinion of April 3, 2002. See Schimmelpfennig v. Eagle Nat. Assur. Corp., 641 N.W.2d 814 (Iowa 2002). In the earlier appeal, our supreme court awarded fees and interest as follows: Schimmelpfennig is entitled to recover interest on the $67.45 deposition cost from September 10, 1997, the time of payment, at the rate of five percent per annum. He is entitled to interest on the payment of $1926 for lost wages and medical expenses from July 31, 1996, the time of payment, at the rate of five percent per annum. That interest should run from the dates indicated until March 20, 2000, and be aggregated with the principal amount of 2 We note a number of substantial issues with Schimmelpfennig s briefing on appeal. Schimmelpfennig fails to cite authority for any of his arguments. His statement of the case fails to set out the relevant events from prior proceedings and he fails to give a statement of facts as required by our rules. Iowa R. App. P. 9.603(2)(e), (f). More importantly, he fails to explain how issues were preserved for review and, until the closing page of his reply brief, fails to argue in favor of a standard of review. Iowa R. App. P. 9.603(2)(g). We also note that Schimmelpfennig cites to the our rules of appellate procedure under a numbering scheme we have abandoned, and does not properly cite to the North Western Reporter as required by rule 6.904(2). Schimmelpfennig s briefing in this case fails to adhere to nearly every standard we have set for proceedings before this court rendering proper and efficient review of his appeal substantially more difficult. 4 the March 20, 2000 judgment. The aggregated total shall draw interest from that date at the rate specified in section 535.3. On return of the procedendo, a corrected judgment shall be entered. Id. at 816. Cameron Mutual s Exhibit H accurately sets out the timeline of payments and amounts due in the case. Cameron Mutual tendered a payment of $10,000 on December 27, 1999.3 The district court, on March 20, 2000, determined that the amount due was $14,673.45. Cameron Mutual made a payment one week later of $4673, plus an additional payment of $60 on October 4, 2000. Our supreme court required an additional $363.88, which was overpaid on June 13, 2002 by a payment of $381.93. Schimmelpfennig has apparently refused to cash this check and, nearly ten years later, wishes to collect interest on the amount paid him because he does not agree with the interest calculation. Schimmelpfennig has been unable, however, to provide an alternative calculation. We agree with the district court that all amounts due have been paid and we can find no basis upon which an additional payment of interest could be ordered. Schimmelpfennig also requests an award of fees for the district court proceedings in this case, as well as for the costs of this appeal. The district court did not address a request of fees and Schimmelpfennig did not request a ruling on that issue in his motion to reconsider. Because the issue was not raised and 3 Schimmelpfennig appears to believe this tender of $10,000 was an offer of settlement. Whether that is true or not is immaterial and irrelevant. The check was eventually cashed by Schimmelpfennig to satisfy a portion of the amount due. Schimmelpfennig may not continue to run up interest charges after receiving the funds, whatever the purpose of the original tender. 5 decided by the district court, it is not preserved for our review. See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012). Cameron Mutual also requests an award of fees in connection with having to defend this appeal. Fee awards rest with our discretion. McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733, 740 (Iowa 2010). We decline to grant the requested attorney fees in this matter. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
