Rodish v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 92-591
| Decision Date | 16 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-591,92-591 |
| Citation | 501 N.W.2d 514 |
| Parties | Judy RODISH and Steven Rodish, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Luis Herrera of Herrera & Schemmel, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
Mark L. Tripp and Gregory A. Witke of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and LARSON, SCHULTZ, LAVORATO, and ANDREASEN, JJ.
Judy Rodish was injured in an accident with an uninsured motorist. At the time, Judy was occupying a Thunderbird owned by her and her husband and insured by Principal Casualty Insurance Company (Principal). Principal paid its limits of uninsured motorist benefits to the Rodishes who then sought uninsured motorist benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company under a policy on a Cadillac also owned by the Rodishes. The Cadillac was not involved in the accident.
State Farm denied the claim, relying on the "antistacking" and "excess" provisions of its policy. Rodishes commenced this declaratory judgment action to determine their rights under the second policy. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm. We affirm.
Under Iowa Code sections 516A.2 and 321A.1(10) (1991), uninsured motorist coverage of at least $20,000 must be made available in all automobile liability policies. Section 516A.2 also provides:
Such forms of coverage may include terms, exclusions, limitations, conditions, and offsets which are designed to avoid duplication of insurance or other benefits.
A 1991 amendment to section 516A.2 added language expressly declaring that it abrogated our decision in Hernandez v. Farmers Insurance Co., 460 N.W.2d 842 (Iowa 1990). That amendment states in part:
It is the intent of the general assembly that when more than one motor vehicle insurance policy is purchased by or on behalf of an injured insured and which provides uninsured, underinsured, or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage to an insured injured in an accident, the injured insured is entitled to recover up to an amount equal to the highest single limit for uninsured, underinsured, or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage under any one of the above described motor vehicle insurance policies insuring the injured person which amount shall be paid by the insurers according to any priority of coverage provisions contained in the policies insuring the injured person.
1991 Iowa Acts ch. 213, § 30 (emphasis added).
The provisions of section 516A.2 are considered to be a part of all automobile liability policies, Veach v. Farmers Ins. Co., 460 N.W.2d 845, 847 (Iowa 1990), and we construe the State Farm policy accordingly.
The plaintiffs present two theories of recovery. They claim first that, because the State Farm policy provided uninsured motor vehicle coverage of $100,000, they are entitled to recover $50,000, which is the difference between the $50,000 received from Principal and the $100,000 uninsured limits of State Farm. As an alternative argument, they claim they are entitled to recover $20,000, which is the minimum amount of uninsured coverage required by sections 516A.2 and 321A.1(10).
State Farm's amended endorsement 6025RR provided:
b. When Coverages U and W Do Not Apply
Item 2 is deleted and replaced by the following:
a. WHILE OCCUPYING, OR
b. THROUGH BEING STRUCK BY
A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY YOU, YOUR SPOUSE OR ANY RELATIVE IF IT IS NOT YOUR CAR, A NEWLY ACQUIRED CAR OR A TEMPORARY SUBSTITUTE CAR.
c. The following is added:
If There is Other Coverage
Under the uninsured motor vehicle coverage, if the insured sustains bodily injury while occupying a vehicle owned by you, your spouse or relative which is not your car, a newly acquired car, or a temporary substitute car, this policy shall:
a. be excess: and
b. apply only in an amount that does not exceed the applicable minimum limit required by Iowa law for bodily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moens
...part of the policy and we treat section 516A.2 as if the parties had actually written it into the policy. Rodish v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 501 N.W.2d 514, 515 (Iowa 1993); Veach, 460 N.W.2d at 847; Tri-State Ins. Co. v. De Gooyer, 379 N.W.2d 16, 17 (Iowa 1985). We construe the insu......
-
Mewes v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co., Inc.
...part of the policy and we treat section 516A.2 as if the parties had actually written it into the policy. Rodish v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 501 N.W.2d 514, 515 (Iowa 1993); Veach, 460 N.W.2d at 847; Tri-State Ins. Co. v. De Gooyer, 379 N.W.2d 16, 17 (Iowa 1985). We construe the insu......