8th Circ reverses defective carpet verdict for StatLims

Insurance company purchased carpeting for remodeled offices that wore out too quickly. Pl claimed equitable tolling excused filing suit beyond 5 year statute of limitations. Deal between 2 sophisticated parties did not indicate fiduciary relationship Employers Mutual v. Collins & Aikman 08/16/05 U.S. Court of Appeals Case No. 04-3420 Southern District of Iowa There was no fiduciary relationship between the parties in this arms-length commercial transaction, and the statute of limitations could not be tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. In Iowa To toll the statute of limitations, the plaintiff must prove 1) "the defendant affirmativelyconcealed the facts on which the plaintiff would predicate [the] cause of action," or2) "a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists between the person concealing the cause of action and the aggrieved party" combined with proof the defendant breachedits duty of disclosure. Rieff v. Evans, 630 N.W.2d 278, 290 (Iowa 2001) mere silence may be sufficient to prove the defendantbreached its duty of disclosure. Kurtz v. Trepp, 375 N.W.2d 280, 283 (Iowa Ct. App.1985).Collins argues the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not apply because there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a fiduciaryrelationship between it and EMC. We agree. We conclude, in the context of this buyer/seller relationship,Collins's statements were an insufficient basis upon which to find a fiduciary relationship. Although a fiduciary relationship may arise between buyers and sellers Asa-Brant, Inc. v. ADM Investor Serv., Inc., 344 F.3d 738, 741 (8th Cir. 2003), a pl. claiming equitable tolling must prove special factors between the parties such a superior knowledge of one party and reliance by the other. In this case rather, the sole evidence of a fiduciary relationship comes from Collins's statement it would work on behalf of EMC to discover the source of the carpet problems. Acting on behalf of another may indicate a fiduciary relationship, but based on all the facts and circumstances of this case we conclude those two statements were insufficient as a matter of law to transform this arms-length buyer/seller business transaction into a fiduciary relationship.