Stover v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 54274
| Decision Date | 09 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 54274,54274 |
| Citation | 189 N.W.2d 588 |
| Parties | Gay L. STOVER, Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Hamilton, Connell & Redenbaugh, Storm Lake, for appellant.
James W. Hudson, Pocahontas, for appellee.
Defendant, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, appeals from judgment for plaintiff, Gay L. Stover, and asserts its personal and farm liability policy clearly excludes coverage for injuries sustained by plaintiff's farm employee while loading plaintiff's truck away from the premises described in the policy.
The relevant facts are stipulated or found in the pleadings. The original petition was filed against Stover by his farm employee, Garry L. Flaherty. It alleged that prior to August 1, 1966 Flaherty was employed by Stover as a laborer in Stover's activities of farming and custom corn shelling. It further alleged that about 6:30 a.m., August 1, 1966 Flaherty reported for work at the Ted Dornath farm where Stover was conducting a corn shelling operation; Stover severely reprimanded Flaherty for being late; ordered him to mount the grain box of Stover's 1966 Ford truck to level corn as it came from the corn sheller; Flaherty did mount the grain box of the truck which had been parked by Stover on an angle causing one side of the box to be approximately 15 degrees lower than the other; as the grain box filled with corn Flaherty's position rose to a point where he was standing on corn above the top of the grain box; Flaherty was unable to keep the corn level; Stover refused to move the truck forward to level ground and Flaherty slipped off the lower side, fell to the ground and severely injured his right leg.
Flaherty alleged Stover was negligent in directing and requiring him to work on top of the grain box as it filled with shelled corn. He sought $6338 damages.
Stover's answer denied negligence on his part and alleged Flaherty had assumed the risk incident to his work and that his injury was caused by his own negligence.
Stover interpleaded State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and also the Home Indemnity Company of New York. He attached to his pleadings copies of his insurance policies with each. His policy with Home Indemnity was liability insurance on his 1966 Ford truck. We shall discuss infra the terms of his personal and farm liability policy with State Farm.
On trial Flaherty was given judgment against Stover for $3000 plus interest and costs. Thereafter Home Indemnity compromised with Stover and paid him $1750.
On trial of the issues between Stover and the appellant here, State Farm, the trial court made a general finding of policy coverage and entered judgment for the amount of Flaherty's recovery against Stover plus $600 attorney fees incurred by Stover after State Farm's refusal to defend the Flaherty claim. An offset of the $1750 paid by Home Indemnity was allowed. The trial court made no reference to paragraph 3 of State Farm's answer which alleged: 'That the policy on its face, to-wit, Sub-paragraph (b) of the exclusions, specifically excludes coverage in this instance (Sub-paragraph (1) thereof).' We of course should have the benefit of the trial court's views on this primary issue. We are also entitled to a brief and argument by appellee Stover but none has been filed.
As errors relied upon for reversal State Farm asserts: (1) The trial court erred in finding coverage existed, when the record as stipulated was insufficient to support such a finding, (2) The allegations in the principal action define a situation that is clearly within the policy exclusion, thus, no duty to defend the insured arose. We agree and hold the judgment must be reversed.
I. State Farm's 'personal and farm policy' describes Stover's 525 acre farm in Pocahontas County as the premises covered and contains three pages of the same size type relating to insuring agreements, definitions, exclusions, conditions and mutual conditions. The 'insuring agreements' include:
'* * *
The 'exclusions' include:
'This policy does not apply: * * *
'(b) to the ownership, maintenance, operation or use, including loading or unloading of (1) automobiles or midget automobiles while away from the premises, except under coverage AF with respect to operations by independent contractors for non-business purposes of an insured not involving automobiles owned or hired by an insured; * * *.'
'Definitions' set out in the policy include:
'Automobile--means a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer other than farm tractors and trailers not subject to motor vehicle registration and farm implements while such farm tractors, trailers and implements are used in connection with a farm.'
II. Rule 344(f) 14, Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:
'In the construction of written contracts, the cardinal principle is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.
...and construed in its entirety. Hoefler v. Farm & City Insurance Company, 193 N.W.2d 538, 540 (Iowa 1972); Stover v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 189 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa 1971); Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. Insurance Company of North America, supra, 459 F.2d at 650; Mallinger v.......
-
Bankers Life Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...principle is that in ascertaining the meaning of the bond the instrument should be read as a whole. See Stover v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 189 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa 1971). An ambiguity can be said to exist concerning the meaning of an insurance contract only if uncertainty exists af......
-
Rodman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...the original intent of the offer and acceptance; i.e., of the protection actually being bought and sold.' See Stover v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 189 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa 1971). In the present case we do not believe an ordinary insured would reasonably believe the policy's bodily injury ......
-
Thomas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 06-1094.
...there is no ambiguity, the court "will not `write a new contract of insurance'" for the parties. Id. (quoting Stover v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 189 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa 1971)). Notwithstanding the principle that the plain meaning of an insurance contract generally prevails, this court ha......