Court of Appeals Finds Jurisdiction of Claimant's Case When Contract of Hire Made in Iowa

In Niday v. Roehl Transport, Inc., No. 18-0712 (Iowa App. April 3, 2019), the court addressed section 85.71(1)(b) of the Iowa Code and concluded that since the contract of hire between claimant and the employer had been made entirely in Iowa, jurisdiction under Iowa workers' compensation law was appropriate in Iowa.  Claimant changed careers when in his 50's received his CDL in Iowa and saw an ad for Roehl in Iowa.  Roehl did not have a terminal or a drop lot in Iowa.  Claimant applied online and was told that he was preliminarily qualified for the position, which first required various medical testing.  A car was rented for claimant in Iowa and he was to drive to Wisconsin (headquarters for Roehl).  Claimant reported to Gary, Indiana for classroom training. Claimant passed this training and was assigned a driver for on the road training throughout the U.S.  Claimant retrieved a truck in Indiana and drove home to Iowa in the truck.

Claimant's route information was set up via computer with approximately 1/3 of the routes originating in or have dropoffs in Iowa.  In 2013 while picking up a load in Kentucky, claimant felt pain in his chest following exertion  This was later said to be a heart attack.  Claimant filed a claim and the deputy found that since the contract of hire was not made in Iowa, jurisdiction was not appropriate.  The deputy found that the letter that had been received by claimant in Iowa was not sufficient to demonstrate that the contract was made in Iowa.  The commissioner and district court affirmed.

The court of appeals reverses, finding that claimant agreed to the terms of the contract during a phone call with a Roehl representative while claimant was in Iowa. Roehl argued that the passing of classwork and driver's training was a condition precedent to the contract, and that the contract was not established until claimant met those terms, in Indiana.  The court found that the employer's argument attempted to blur the lines between the formation of the contract and the fulfillment of conditions within an existing contract.  In this case, the court concluded that claimant had made a contract with the employer (in Iowa) and subsequently had to fulfill his testing requirements before he would begin work. The court found that the "last act necessary" to complete a contract was the acceptance of the offer rather than fulfillment of conditions.  Accordingly, the case was remanded to the commissioner for further development.