## Facts

- Bruce E. Sain II attended Jefferson High School in the Cedar Rapids Community School District and sought to play NCAA Division I basketball on scholarship.
- NCAA Division I initial-eligibility rules required, among other items, completion of three years of NCAA-approved English “core courses” listed for each school on an NCAA-approved course form.
- Sain’s guidance counselor, Larry Bowen, was generally familiar with NCAA requirements and provided course-selection advice.
- Entering his senior year, Sain needed three NCAA-approved English courses; after disliking an English course, he consulted Bowen about alternatives.
- Sain alleged Bowen advised him to take “Technical Communications” and stated it would count as an NCAA-approved English core course; Sain enrolled based on that statement.
- The school had not submitted Technical Communications for NCAA approval, and it was not listed as an approved English core course.
- Sain accepted a full basketball scholarship to Northern Illinois University, but after graduation the NCAA determined he lacked the required approved English credits, making him ineligible as a freshman.
- Sain lost the scholarship and could not attend Northern Illinois University, then sued the district for negligence and negligent misrepresentation based on erroneous eligibility advice.

## Issues

1. Whether a school district, through a guidance counselor, owes a duty of reasonable care when providing specific NCAA eligibility information to a student who foreseeably relies on it.
2. Whether negligent misrepresentation is limited to commercial or business transactions, or can apply to professional educational counseling that supplies specific eligibility information.
3. Whether claims based on incorrect eligibility advice are barred as impermissible “educational malpractice,” or instead constitute ordinary tort claims based on verifiable factual misinformation.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the school district and remanded.
- The court held the petition stated actionable claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
- The court concluded the claims were not barred as “educational malpractice” because they concerned the communication of specific, concrete information capable of being true or false, not the overall quality of education.
- The court held negligent misrepresentation was not categorically confined to commercial settings and could apply to a guidance counselor’s provision of specialized eligibility information.
- Because the theories were legally cognizable and material factual disputes existed (including what was said and reliance), summary judgment was improper.

## Legal Principles

- A school employee who undertakes to provide specific, consequential informational guidance to a student may owe a duty to use reasonable care in obtaining and communicating that information when reliance and harm are foreseeable.
- Claims attacking broad educational quality, pedagogical choices, or program design may be barred as “educational malpractice,” but claims based on discrete, objectively verifiable misinformation can be evaluated under traditional tort standards.
- Negligent misrepresentation may arise outside strictly commercial contexts when a defendant, in a professional or advisory role, supplies false information for the guidance of others, the plaintiff justifiably relies on it, and pecuniary loss results.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a student-athlete to proceed on negligence and negligent misrepresentation theories against a school district for allegedly incorrect NCAA core-course advice, holding the case involved verifiable misinformation rather than barred educational malpractice and that negligent misrepresentation is not limited to commercial transactions.


Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 2001)