Claude v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., 03-0554.
Citation | 679 N.W.2d 659 |
Decision Date | 12 May 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 03-0554.,03-0554. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Parties | Melissa H. CLAUDE, as Administrator of the Estate of John D. Mahoney and as Administrator of the Estate of Elizabeth A. Mahoney, Appellant, v. GUARANTY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Orion Auto Insurance, Inc., Appellee. |
John D. Jordan of Payer, Jordan, Mahoney, Jordan, Quinn, Hunziker & Rhodes, L.L.P., Boone, for appellant.
Timothy A. Clausen and Justin L. Seurer of Klass, Stoik, Mugan, Villone, Phillips, Orzechowski, Clausen & Lapierre, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellee.
The plaintiff's petition seeking uninsured motorist benefits for the deaths of her parents was dismissed on the defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment. The district court ruled the decedents' injuries were not caused by a "hit-and-run vehicle" because there was no "actual physical contact" between the decedents' vehicle and the vehicle of the alleged uninsured motorist, as required by the policy definition of "uninsured motor vehicle." The court concluded the policy requirement of physical contact did not violate public policy even where, as here, there was independent evidence that an unknown motorist caused the accident. The district court also rejected the plaintiff's equal protection challenge to Iowa Code section 516A.1 (2001), which authorizes the physical-contact requirement when a claim for uninsured motorist coverage is based on the conduct of a hit-and-run driver. Upon consideration of the plaintiff's arguments on appeal, we affirm the district court's ruling.
On October 28, 2001, John and Betty Mahoney were killed in a motor vehicle accident when their van collided with an oncoming semi. The Mahoney vehicle entered the path of the semi in an attempt to avoid a head-on collision with a speeding car that was passing the semi in a no-passing zone.
The driver of the passing car did not stop and was never identified. Five disinterested persons witnessed the accident, however, and reported that the unknown vehicle forced the Mahoney van off the road, causing the Mahoneys to lose control of their van and collide with the semi.
(Emphasis added.) Orion denied coverage because there was no physical contact between the Mahoney van and the unknown vehicle as required by the insurance contract.1 The plaintiff filed this action, seeking uninsured motorist benefits. In response to a request for admissions, the plaintiff admitted there was no physical contact between the Mahoney van and the car driven by the alleged tortfeasor. Concluding the material facts were not in dispute, the district court sustained Orion's motion for summary judgment on the basis the unknown motorist was not operating an uninsured motor vehicle as defined in the policy. This appeal followed.
Our review of a ruling on a motion for summary judgment is for correction of errors of law. Lee v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 646 N.W.2d 403, 406 (Iowa 2002). Where the moving party has shown that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is appropriate and will be affirmed. Id. Where, as here, the material facts are not disputed, our only task on appeal is to determine whether the district court correctly applied the law. Id.
The plaintiff makes three arguments in support of her position that the trial court should not have granted judgment to the defendant. First, she claims strict enforcement of the physical contact requirement is against public policy, at least under the facts of this case. Second, she contends the correlative physical-contact requirement in the uninsured motorist statute, section 516A.1, violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state constitutions. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Iowa Const. art. I, § 6. Finally, she asserts the district court erred in failing to apply the doctrine of reasonable expectations to permit coverage. Because the plaintiff did not raise the theory of reasonable expectations in the district court proceeding, error was not preserved on that issue and we will not address it on appeal. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pflibsen, 350 N.W.2d 202, 206 (Iowa 1984)
(. ) See generally Moritz v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 434 N.W.2d 624, 626 (Iowa 1989) ( ).
The physical-contact requirement of Orion's policy finds its genesis in Iowa's uninsured motorist statute. Section 516A.1 provides in relevant part:
To avoid the terminal effect of this decision, the plaintiff argues the physical-contact requirement is against public policy and, therefore, unenforceable. She points out that this condition is designed to reduce "`the possibility that a motorist who loses control of his vehicle through his own negligence will be able to recover under the uninsured motorist coverage by alleging that an unknown vehicle caused the [insured's] injuries.'" Moritz, 434 N.W.2d at 627 (citation omitted). The plaintiff asserts this possibility is not present here because there are five disinterested witnesses who confirm that an unknown motorist caused the accident. Such independent corroboration was not present, she points out, in the Rohret case. Because it is present here, she claims it would be against public policy to deny recovery simply because there was no physical contact.
The flaw in this argument is that "public policy" is not determined by this court's "generalized concepts of fairness and justice" or our determination of what might be most just in a particular case. Harvey v. Care Initiatives, Inc., 634 N.W.2d 681, 686 (Iowa 2001). "`We must look to the Constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions of [this] state, to determine [our] public policy and that which is not prohibited by statute, condemned by judicial decision, nor contrary to the public morals contravenes no principle of public policy.'" In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 780 (Iowa 2003) (citation omitted); accord Principal Cas. Ins. Co. v. Blair, 500 N.W.2d 67, 69 (Iowa 1993)
(. )
overruled on other grounds by Hamm v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 612 N.W.2d 775, 784 (Iowa 2000), this desire was implemented with certain specified restrictions, including the requirement of physical contact when the tortfeasor's identity is unknown. This court will not expand the reach of a statute where, as here, the "legislature has weighed in on the issue and [has] established the parameters of the governing public policy." Harvey, 634...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids
...Sanchez v. State , 692 N.W.2d 812, 819 (Iowa 2005) (noting that neither party argued for a different standard); Claude v. Guar. Nat’l Ins. , 679 N.W.2d 659, 664 n.3 (Iowa 2004) (making specific reference to lack of briefing on independent state constitutional approach). In these cases, we d......
-
Plowman v. Fort Madison Cmty. Hosp.
...policy "is not predicated on this court's 'generalized concepts of fairness and justice.' " Id. at 12 (quoting Claude v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co. , 679 N.W.2d 659, 663 (Iowa 2004) ).Rather, "[w]e must look to the Constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions of [this] state, to determine [our]......
-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids & Gatso United States, Inc.
...Sanchez v. State, 692 N.W.2d 812, 819 (Iowa 2005) (noting that neither party argued for a different standard); Claude v. Guar. Nat'l Ins., 679 N.W.2d 659, 664 n.3 (Iowa 2004) (making specific reference to lack of briefing on independent state constitutional approach). In these cases, we do ......
-
State v. Angel
... ... v. Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. , 32 Misc.3d 69, 929 N.Y.S.2d 830, 831 (App. Term. 2011) (finding a ... ...