Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-219,97-219 |
| Citation | 580 N.W.2d 788 |
| Parties | FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
James A. Pugh and Lori K. Geadelmann of Morain, Burlingame & Pugh, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
John B. Grier and Merrill C. Swartz of Cartwright, Druker & Ryden, Marshalltown, for appellee.
Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and CARTER, NEUMAN, SNELL, and ANDREASEN, JJ.
This is an action in which a medical payment insurer of a settling tort claimant seeks recovery of damages from the settling tortfeasor's liability insurer for loss of a subrogation interest. The district court granted summary judgment for the tortfeasor's insurer. Upon reviewing the record and considering the arguments presented, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
On April 10, 1994, Carl Parker's automobile collided with an automobile driven by Michael Motsinger. Parker had insurance with Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau) that included medical payments coverage. Under that coverage, Farm Bureau paid Parker $7863.36 for treatment of injuries sustained in the collision with Motsinger. Motsinger's liability insurer was Allied Mutual Insurance Company (Allied).
To the extent of its medical payments to Parker, Farm Bureau was subrogated to any tort recovery he might obtain from Motsinger. Under the terms of the policy, this could be exercised irrespective of whether Parker had been made whole as to all elements of damage. Farm Bureau provided Allied with written notice of its subrogation interest, although it substantially understated the amount thereof. Later, Allied settled Parker's tort claim by means of an $11,000 cash payment directly to him in exchange for his release of all claims against Motsinger. Allied did not include Farm Bureau as a payee on the check to Parker.
In January 1996 Farm Bureau commenced this action against Allied, asserting theories of tortious interference with a contract, breach of an equitable subrogation right, and fraud. The district court granted summary judgment for Allied after concluding that Iowa law does not recognize a duty on the part of a tortfeasor's insurer to protect a subrogation interest of the victim's insurer in settling a claim.
Farm Bureau asserts that many courts in other jurisdictions have adopted the legal position that it is advocating. Most, if not all, of the cases, which it cites and all of the cases it actually argues in its brief, involve an entirely different issue. 1 The issue raised in those cases was whether the insurer's right to assert its subrogation claim against the tortfeasor was extinguished when its insured settled with the tortfeasor. The decisions in those cases determined that it was not. Those courts allowed the partially subrogated insurers to pursue their claims directly against the tortfeasor notwithstanding the insured's release. 2 Under Iowa law, however, a partially subrogated insurer may not pursue its subrogation claim directly against the tortfeasor at any time absent some inability or unwillingness of the subrogor to pursue the entire claim. Krapfl v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 548 N.W.2d 877 880 (Iowa 1996). In the present case, Parker did pursue the entire claim against Motsinger.
In contrast to the cases on which it relies, Farm Bureau is not asking this court to hold that it may proceed to assert its subrogation claim against Motsinger, notwithstanding Parker's release. It seeks, rather, to recover against Allied in tort based on the violation of an alleged duty on Allied's part to protect Farm Bureau's interest when it was settling with Parker. We agree with the district court's conclusion that no such duty exists.
In United Security Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 278 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 1979), we approved the following characterization of the interest of a partial subrogee:
[A]n insurer who has paid a loss is therefore subrogated (to the extent of the payment) to the rights of the insured; ... [W]here the insurance payment covers the entire loss, the insurer becomes the party in interest and may bring an action; ... [W]here the insurance covers only a portion of the loss, the right of action remains in the insured for the entire loss, the insured becoming a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brandon v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co.
...when the insured is unwilling (or unable) to pursue a claim against the tortfeasor for the entire loss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 580 N.W.2d 788, 789 (Iowa 1998). Thus, the claim in this case was entirely West Bend's claim, not Brandon's, and Brandon's decision not ......
-
In re Estate of Boyd
...to pursue a claim against David's estate, for Farm Bureau to proceed directly against David's estate. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 580 N.W.2d 788, 790 (Iowa 1998). The undisputed facts in this case establish that Berta's estate was not unwilling or unable to pursue a c......
-
Utica Nat. Ins. Co. v. Cyr
...not persuade us. In the first case, the injured party received $8,000 from his insurer after a car crash. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 580 N.W.2d 788 (Iowa 1998). The injured party then settled with the tortfeasor's insurer for $11,000 without notice to, or consent fro......
-
Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Heiken
...for its loss based on breach of contract, not on a claim for subrogation. This approach is consistent with Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co., where we recognized that an indemnified insured is a trustee for the benefit of the subrogated insurer of settlement pr......