 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Welchans v. United Services Automobile Association3/13/2002
both Allied's and USAAs policies was available to Welchans. Our analysis does not end there. We do not interpret statutory provisions in isolation. Mewes v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 530 N.W.2d 718, 722 (Iowa 1995).
Iowa Code section 516A.2 allows insurers to "include terms, exclusions, limitations, conditions, and offsets which are designed to avoid duplication of insurance or other benefits." Id. The Iowa Supreme Court considered this statutory provision in Miller v. Westfield Ins. Co., 606 N.W.2d 301, 306 (Iowa 2000) and said:
e have not required an actual duplication of benefits when an owned-but-not-insured exclusion is contained in underinsured motorists (UIM) coverage. We have said that, in the context of UIM coverage, there is "no duplication of benefits until the victim has been fully compensated." McClure v. Northland Ins. Co., 424 N.W.2d 448, 450 (Iowa 1988) (applying section 516A.2(1)'s duplication-of-benefits provision). Yet in Kluiter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 417 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa 1987), we upheld an owned-but-not-insured exclusion with no discussion of whether the insured had been fully compensated for his injuries. 417 N.W.2d at 76. Instead, we merely found "potential duplication." Id. (emphasis added); see also Hornick, 511 N.W.2d at 374, (holding the UIM policy provision at issue "may be viewed as an attempt to avoid duplication of insurance coverage and is therefore permitted under Iowa Code section 516A.2" (emphasis added)).
Our inconsistent application of the statute's duplication-of-benefits provision finds no support in the language of the statute; either section 516A.2(1) requires actual duplication, or it does not. As we have explained, based on the words used by the legislature, we hold that actual duplication is not required under section 516A.2(1). Miller v. Westfield Ins. Co., 606 N.W.2d 301, 306 (Iowa 2000); accord Lefler v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisc., 260 F.3d 942, 946 (8th Cir. 2001).
Welchans argues this provision does not apply because his insurance agent said he knew of no under-insured motorist coverage available for Welchans's John Deere tractor. Plaintiff contends because he could not purchase UIM coverage for the tractor, there is no potential for duplication. Under the statutory language, the potential duplication encompasses insurance or other benefits. Iowa Code ยง 516A.2(1) (emphasis added). We cannot on this record find there is no potential for duplication. The "owned-but-not-insured" UIM exclusion provisions in Allied's and USAA's policies are designed to avoid duplication. Consequently, they meet the statutory requirements of Iowa Code section 516A.2 and are enforceable. The exclusionary language, although phrased differently in the two policies, excludes the tractor on which Welchans was injured. We therefore reverse the decision of the district court that UIM coverage is available to Welchans under his Allied or USAA policies. We reverse the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action.
REVERSED AND DISMISSED.
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|