Detrick v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
Decision Date | 09 April 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 52882,52882 |
Citation | 158 N.W.2d 99,261 Iowa 1246 |
Parties | Harry DETRICK and Nellie Detrick, Appellants, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, an Insurance company, and Harold W. Higgs, d/b/a Hal Higgs Insurance, Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Lee H. Gaudineer, Jr., Des Moines, for appellants.
Eugene Davis, Des Moines, for appellees.
This action reviewable de novo on appeal involves plaintiffs' claims for benefits under the 'Uninsured Motorist' coverage provided by an automobile liability insurance policy issued to plaintiffs by Aetna Casualty. Defendant Aetna Casualty declined to pay because the motorist who had caused the injuries was not 'uninsured.'
Plaintiffs' petition sought a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to benefits, and a money judgment. Plaintiffs also sought reformation of the policy, based on alleged mutual mistake or on the basis of what 'public policy' requires. If the foregoing relief were denied, they sought damages against Aetna's agent, Hal Higgs, for allegedly misrepresenting the coverage.
In the trial court all issues were resolved in favor of the defendants.
This appeal presents the question of the meaning of the policy, and the correctness of the trial court's findings that plaintiffs had not established grounds for reformation or for damages resulting from misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs are husband and wife.
Defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, is an insurance company duly licensed to do business in Iowa. Defendant Harold W. Higgs, d/b/a Hal Higgs Insurance, is an individual residing in Des Moines, Iowa, who at all times material hereto was engaged in the general insurance agency business, and sold insurance for several insurance companies, including Aetna.
On December 3, 1960, defendant Aetna issued a policy of insurance to plaintiffs, pursuant to plaintiffs' written application therefor which provided coverage for a 1959 Ford automobile. This policy was replaced by the policy involved herein dated September 3, 1963, providing similar coverage. We reproduce the original application.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
We reproduce the declaration sheet attached to the replacement policy.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
This policy was called an 'Auto-Rite' policy. It provided coverage of $300,000 liability for each occurrence, medical expense coverage of $5,000 to each person, accidental death benefits of $1,000 to each named insured, and uninsured motorists coverage of $20,000 for each accident. The limits to coverage for liability and uninsured motorists were of the 'level' type imposing a maximum of $300,000 and $20,000 respectively regardless of whether one person or more than one person is entitled to receive benefits thereunder.
The coverage provided as protection against uninsured motorists is stated in part 1 of the policy as follows:
The term 'uninsured highway vehicle' is defined in the policy as follows:
'(a) a highway vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which there is, in at least the amounts specified by the Financial Responsibility Law of the state in which the insured automobile is principally garaged, no bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident with respect to any person or organization legally responsible for the use of such vehicle, or with respect to which there is a bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident but the company writing the same denies coverage thereunder, or
'(b) a hit-and-run vehicle.'
On October 5, 1963, Harry Detrick was driving the 1959 Ford insured under the policy when he was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by one Mary Sullivan. Harry Detrick sustained serious injuries, resulting in damages in excess of $20,000. It is admitted that Mary Sullivan was legally liable for such accident and the damages sustained by Harry Detrick.
Mary Sullivan had a policy of automobile liability insurance with Employers Mutual Casualty Company. The limit of liability for bodily injury specified in her policy was equal to the amount specified by the Iowa Financial Responsibility Law--$10,000 for injury to one person.
Employers Mutual paid its full policy limits ($10,000.00) to Harry Detrick, who executed a covenant not to sue Mary Sullivan, but retained his rights against Aetna.
Plaintiffs claimed a policy ambiguity by referring to the 'other insurance clause.' The language relied on refers to a situation where the insured has a second policy and has no application here.
The trial court found:
'The 'other insurance' clause is not applicable under the facts of this case.'
Plaintiff Nellie Detrick testified that she wanted and thought she was buying insurance that would provide up to $20,000 in event of injury by another motorist.
The trial court found:
Mrs. Detrick testified that she relied on Mr. Higgs and did not read her policy. (A not uncommon situation.) She may have not correctly understood what she was buying but she makes no claim that anything was ever intentionally misrepresented to her. With commendable honesty she testified: 'I don't think Hal Higgs would intentionally lie to anybody.'
We continue from the trial court's findings:
'Plaintiffs have failed to establish by the required degree of proof that the parties made a mutual mistake as alleged in Count II of the Petition, that the language of the insurance contract is 'against the public policy of this state' as alleged in Count III, or that defendant Higgs was guilty of false, reckless or fraudulent statements as alleged in Count IV of the Petition.'
The trial court also found:
We agree with the findings of the trial court.
I. Plaintiffs here are the unfortunate victims of an anomaly. Whether such a situation has ever been contemplated in the buying and selling of insurance we do not know. Plaintiffs would have been better off financially had the injury been caused by a motorist with no insurance. This situation, however, does not authorize us to write into the insurance contract something that is not there. The policy covers injuries caused by an uninsured motorist. It does not cover under insurance. It is a 'level' type policy wherein the maximum liability of the company is fixed regardless of how many persons might be entitled to receive benefits.
The terms 'automobile liability insurance', 'insured' and 'uninsured' are words of common meaning and understanding in accord with dictionary definitions. 'Automobile liability insurance' is defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary as 'insurance against loss from or legal liability for damages arising out of ownership, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle.' 'Underinsurance' means 'insurance in an amount insufficient to cover the possible loss or to satisfy the requirements of a coinsurance clause.' 'Insured' means 'the owner of a policy of insurance.' 'Un' is a prefix meaning 'not.'
Mary Sullivan was the owner of a policy of liability insurance. She was insured in the amount required by our Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. (Section 321A.1(10), 1966 Code of Iowa)
We find nothing ambiguous in the use of the words in the policy nor in the provisions thereof. Mary Sullivan was not uninsured nor underinsured within the requirements of the statute. We find no authority authorizing us to define the word 'uninsured' to mean underinsured in relation to plaintiff's injury.
In Mallinger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Inc., 253 Iowa 222, 226, 111 N.W.2d 647, we quoted from Field v. Southern Surety Co., 211 Iowa 1239, 235 N.W. 571, as follows:
In the special concurrence this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blackburn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Resin Eng'r Co. v. Great American Ins. Co., 70 Ill.App.3d 619, 27 Ill.Dec. 209, 388 N.E.2d 1258 (1979); Detrick v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 261 Iowa 1246, 158 N.W.2d 99 (1968); Wren v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 535 S.W.2d 849 (Ky.1976); Richard v. Zurich Ins. Co., 318 So.2d 83 (La.App.197......
-
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stockdale Agency
...181-184 (Iowa 1970) (making the same distinction in an action in equity to void or rescind a contract); Detrick v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 158 N.W.2d 99, 105-106 (Iowa 1968) (distinguishing between elements and proof of fraud in equity and in law and the remedies flowing from each ki......
-
Holden v. Construction Machinery Co.
...973, 263 N.W. 5 (1935); Dickinson v. Stevenson, 142 Iowa 567, 571, 120 N.W. 324 (1909). See also Detrick v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 261 Iowa 1246, 1256--1257, 158 N.W.2d 99 (1968). For reasons heretofore disclosed, we find Warran's acts and conduct embracing the entire Chamberlain tr......
-
In re Alodex Corporation Securities Litigation
...(3) materiality, (4) scienter, (5) intent to deceive, (6) reliance, (7) injury and damages. See Detrick v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 261 Iowa 1246, 158 N.W.2d 99, 105-06 (1968); Hall v. Wright, 261 Iowa 758, 156 N.W.2d 661, 666 (1968); Ford v. Barcus, 261 Iowa 616, 155 N.W.2d 507, 511 (1......