Benzer v. Iowa Mut. Tornado Ins. Ass'n

Decision Date27 March 1974
Docket NumberNo. 56193,56193
Citation216 N.W.2d 385
PartiesJoseph BENZER and Dorothy Benzer, Individually and as parents and next friends of Debra, et al., Appellee, v. IOWA MUTUAL TORNADO INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, Des Moines, for appellant.

David F. McGuire, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

Heard before MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, REYNOLDSON, HARRIS and McCORMICK, JJ.

REYNOLDSON, Justice.

Defendant Iowa Mutual Tornado Insurance Association (Iowa Mutual) issued an automobile policy containing uninsured motorist $10,000/$20,000 coverage to Joseph R. Benzer. On September 26, 1970 Dorothy Benzer, the insured's wife, and three of his minor children were passengers in an automobile owned by a relative and operated by that relative's wife. A collision with a vehicle driven by an uninsured motorist injured all these members of the Joseph R. Benzer family and caused injuries and one death to other occupants of the car.

The automobile in which plaintiff's wife Dorothy Benzer and the minor children were riding was insured by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company's policy containing a $15,000/$30,000 uninsured motorist endorsement. Of the total $30,000 payable under State Farm's policy, three other claims, including the death claim, absorbed all except $9263.43. This sum was paid in various amounts to the four injured plaintiffs, who reserved their rights against Iowa Mutual.

These parties stipulated the above apportionment was a fair and suitable division of State Farm's insurance proceeds; the plaintiffs, however, sustained serious injuries and would reasonably have presented claims and made recoveries in excess of the amounts paid by that insurer.

Plaintiffs brought this declaratory judgment action seeking an adjudication they are entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist coverage of the policy issued by Iowa Mutual, and for specific performance.

Iowa Mutual sought to avoid paying any amount under its policy relying on the 'other insurance' clause in its contract.

Trial court held plaintiffs were entitled to recover from Iowa Mutual to the amount of its $20,000 uninsured motorist coverage, less the sum of $9263.43 already received from State Farm, and rendered judgment for the difference, $10,736.57. Upon Iowa Mutual's appeal, we affirm.

I. The 'other insurance' clause Iowa Mutual relies on relevantly states in part:

'Other insurance: With respect to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an automobile not owned by the named insured, the insurance under Part IV shall apply only as excess insurance over any other similar insurance Available to such insured and applicable to such automobile as primary insurance, and this insurance shall then apply only in the amount by which the limit of liability for this coverage exceeds the applicable limit of liability for such other insurance.' (Emphasis added.)

Iowa Mutual asserts the above clause has the 'specific statutory blessing' of § 516A.2, The Code, found in chapter 516A, which requires uninsured motorist coverage to be offered to each insured. That section pertinently provides:

'516A.2 Construction--minimum coverage. Nothing containing in this chapter shall be construed As requiring forms of coverage provided pursuant hereto, whether alone or in combinations with similar coverage afforded under other automobile liability * * * policies, to afford limits In excess of those that would be afforded had the insured thereunder been involved in an accident with a motorist who was insured under a policy of liability insurance with the minimum limits for bodily injury or death prescribed in subsection 10 of section 321A.1. Such forms of coverage may include terms, exclusions, limitations, conditions, and offsets which are designed to avoid Duplication of insurance or other benefits.' (Emphasis added.)

It is this statute, Iowa Mutual contends, which prevents Iowa from joining the clear majority of jurisdictions which simply reject such policy clauses as invalidated by the public policy expressed in uninsured motorist coverage legislative enactments, and permit the insured to recover against two or more uninsured motorist coverage carriers to the extent of his actual damages. See, e.g., Employers Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd. v. Jackson, 289 Ala. 673, 678, 270 So.2d 806, 809 (1972) and cases cited; Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. Darrow, 161 Conn. 169, 174--181, 286 A.2d 288, 290--293 (1971) and cases cited; Patton v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, 267 N.E.2d 859 (Ind.App.1971); Comment: The Invalidity of the 'Other Insurance' Provision: A New Majority, 17 S.D.L.Rev. 152 (1972).

We believe the issue in this case may be resolved without determining whether § 516A.2 implies all that Iowa Mutual contends for it. We have concluded the decision is controlled by the language of the company's 'other insurance' clause. Before construing that provision, however, we cannot but observe Iowa Mutual is basically seeking to offset uninsured motorist coverage against uninsured motorist coverage to reduce or deny plaintiffs' claim. Had there been no such coverage on the auto in which these plaintiffs were riding, there would be no question but that their damages would have been compensated to the extent of the $20,000 uninsured motorist coverage on their family vehicle. Section 516A.1 sets a minimum amount of insurance which must be offered for the insured's protection. Section 516A.2 specifies the legislation shall not be construed as Requiring coverage which Exceeds the minimum amount: it does not set a limit on the maximum protection. See Deterding v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 78 Ill.App.2d 29, 32, 222 N.E.2d 523, 525 (1966); Patton v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, supra, 267 N.E.2d at 863. Section 516A.2, by equating 'insurance' with 'benefits' arguably could be construed as expressing only a legislative intent to prohibit the pyramiding of separate coverages to recover more than the actual damages. See generally Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade, 11 Ariz.App. 14, 461 P.2d 190 (1969); Sturdy v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co., 203 Kan. 783, 457 P.2d 34 (1969); Collins v. Motorist Mutual Insurance Company, 36 Mich.App 424, 194 N.W.2d 148 (1971); Protective Fire and Casualty Company v. Woten, 186 Neb. 212, 181 N.W.2d 835 (1970).

II. A statute applicable to a contract of insurance enters into and forms a part thereof in the same manner as if it had been actually written or copied therein and in construing the terms of the policy, the statute is to be read in connection therewith, in the light of the purpose and intent of the statute. Williamson v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 142 Conn. 573, 576--577, 116 A.2d 169, 171 (1955); 43 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance § 262, p. 321; 44 C.J.S. Insurance § 302, pp. 1214--20; see Bates v. Nelson, 240 Iowa 926, 933, 38 N.W.2d 631, 635 (1949).

Thus the 'other insurance' provision of Iowa Mutual's policy should be construed in light of the broad intent and purpose of the legislation which required the company to offer the uninsured motorist coverage.

We initially note the title of chapter 516A: 'Protection Against Uninsured or Hit-And-Run Motorists.' The coverage which must be offered to every insured is 'for the protection of persons insured under such policy * * *.' Section 516A.1, The Code. See Rodman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 208 N.W.2d 903, 910 (Iowa 1973); Markham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 326 F.Supp. 39, 43 (W.D.Okla.1971), rev'd on other grounds, 464 F.2d 703 (10 Cir. 1972) (parent-child immunity doctrine).

Other courts have observed these cases are more easily resolved if it is kept in mind the protection is for the insured, not the uninsured motorist. In Horne v. Superior Life Insurance Company, 203 Va. 282, 285, 123 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1962) the Virginia court said:

'It is not the purpose of the uninsured motorist law to provide coverage for the uninsured vehicle, but its object is to afford the insured additional protection in event of an accident. Here, Aetna does not stand in the shoes of Washington, the uninsured motorist. Its policy does not insured Washington against liability. It insures Mrs. Horne and others protected under the policy against inadequate compensation.'

For similar language, see Travelers Indemnity Company v. Wells, 209 F.Supp. 784, 790--791 (W.D.Va.1962); MFA Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bradshaw, 431 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Ark.1968); Gordon v. Maupin, 469 S.W.2d 848, 851 (St.L.Mo.App.1971); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co., 203 Va. 600, 603, 125 S.E.2d 840, 843 (1962).

III. In interpreting Iowa Mutual's 'other insurance' clause we are not only mindful of the public policy evident in chapter 516A, The Code, but also our rule that where insurance contracts are ambiguous, require interpretation, or are susceptible to two equally proper constructions, the court will adopt the construction most favorable to the insured. Rich v. Dyna Technology, Inc., 204 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Iowa 1973).

Other of our rules more specifically apply.

An insurer, having affirmatively expressed coverage through broad promises, assumes a duty to define any limitations or exclusionary clauses in clear and explicit terms. Roach v. Churchman, 431 F.2d 849 (8 Cir. 1970), dismissing appeal from remand, 457 F.2d 1101 (8 Cir. 1972); Jackson v. Continental Casualty Company, 266 F.Supp. 782 (S.D.Iowa 1967), aff'd, 400 F.2d 285 (8 Cir. 1968); Wilson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 256 Iowa 844, 846--848, 128 N.W.2d 218, 220 (1964).

A contract of insurance should be interpreted from the viewpoint of an ordinary person, not a specialist or expert. Rodman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., supra, 208 N.W.2d at 906; Qualls v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 184 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Iowa 1971); Bates v. United Security Insurance Company, 163 N.W.2d 390, 397 (Iowa 1968).

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1975
    ...the insurance bargained for in a given case nor ousts the court from necessary jurisdiction. See, e.g., Benzer v. Iowa Mutual Tornado Insurance Ass'n, 216 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa 1974); Union Ins. Co. (Mutual) v. Iowa Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 175 N.W.2d 413 (1970). In this connection it has been pe......
  • Baybutt Const. Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1983
    ...1277 (N.H.1978); Federal Insurance Company v. P.A.T. Homes, Inc., 113 Ariz. 136, 547 P.2d 1050, 1053 (1976); Benzer v. Iowa Mutual Tornado Insurance Ass'n, 216 N.W.2d 385 (Ia.1974). See also Patrons Mutual Insurance Company v. Rideout, 411 A.2d 673, 676 (Me.1980); Limberis v. Aetna Casualty......
  • Rohret v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1979
    ...with the motions. Rohret appealed. Rohret is right that we read the statute into the policies. Benzer v. Iowa Mutual Tornado Insurance Association, 216 N.W.2d 385, 388 (Iowa 1974). She is also right that our statute is "double barreled," as she puts it; the statute covers accidents with uni......
  • McClure v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1976
    ...v. Hawkeye Security Ins. Co., 230 N.W.2d 517 (Iowa); Langstraat v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co., 217 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa); Benzer v. Iowa Mut. Tornado Ins. Assn., 216 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa); Rodman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 208 N.W.2d 903 (Iowa); Western Cas. & Sur. Co. v. General Cas. Co. of Wis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT