 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IMT Insurance v. Sayer12/8/2004
otion for summary judgment, stating:
The Court finds there is a dispute of fact as to whether Nathan Chopard had a reasonable belief he possessed permission to use Zachary Sherman's car. As a result, the motions for summary judgment of Depositors Insurance Company and IMT Insurance are denied.
The declaratory judgment case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury answered the following special interrogatory in the affirmative:
Have the Plaintiff Insurance companies proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Nathan Chopard did not have a reasonable belief that he had permission to use the vehicle he was driving at the time of the accident?
Defendants filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the resulting verdict and for new trial. The district court denied the motions. The court concluded IMT and Depositors did not have duty to defend or indemnify Chopard's estate. The estates of Hansel, Smith, and Sherman appeal.
II. Standard of Review
A declaratory judgment is reviewed as any other judgment. Smith v. Bertram, 603 N.W.2d 568, 570 (Iowa 1999). Where, as here, the case was tried at law, our review is to correct errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co. v. Recker, 561 N.W.2d 63, 68 (Iowa 1997). We are bound by the findings of fact in the district court if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)(a).
III. Exception to Exclusion: Use of Vehicle
The appellants claim the district court should have determined as a matter of law that IMT was required to provide a defense and indemnify Chopard's estate based on the policy language which states the exclusion in question "does not apply to a 'family member' using 'your covered auto' which is owned by you." They claim Zachary was using Sherman's car as a passenger at the time of the accident, and therefore, the exclusion does not apply. See Lee v. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co., 646 N.W.2d 403, 409 (Iowa 2002) (citing Van Zwol v. Branon, 440 N.W.2d 589, 593 (Iowa 1989)) (noting the meaning of the term "use" is broader than the meaning of the term "operation").
Even if we were to find Zachary was using the car as a passenger at the time of the accident, and the exclusion did not apply to Zachary's estate, we determine the district court did not err in failing to find for the estates of Hansel and Smith as a matter of law. The IMT policy was purchased by Zachary's father and Zachary was a family member under the terms of the policy. The Hansel and Smith estates claims were against Chopard's estate and not against Zachary's estate. Chopard was not a family member under the IMT policy, and therefore, the exception to the exclusion did not apply to his estate. We conclude the district court did not err in failing to find as a matter of law for the estates of Hansel and Smith on this issue.
IV. Exception to Exclusion: Reasonable Belief
The appellant estates claim the district court should have ruled, as a matter of law, that the insurance companies failed to prove Chopard was driving Sherman's car without a reasonable belief that he was entitled to do so. They assert the insurance companies presented no evidence to show what Chopard reasonably believed at the time he drove the car. They point out that Zachary was in the car, and they state the insurance companies were unable to prove Zachary did not give his permission to Chopard to drive the car. Appellants contend this issue should not have been submitted to the jury because the issue rests only on speculation and conjecture.
"Because of the adhesive nature of insurance policies, their provisions are construed in the lig
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|