Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This case involved a district court's denial of coverage under a fire insurance policy. A husband and wife had an insurance policy on their home. The policy included an intentional loss exclusion, voiding coverage when any insured intentionally causes a loss or damage. The district court denied coverage because the husband attempted suicide by pouring gasoline on himself and his home and lit himself on fire. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a coinsured who sets fire to the insured dwelling in order to commit suicide has the requisite intent to "cause a loss" under the policy; (2) under the language of the policy, the innocent coinsured spouse, who did not participate in the intentional acts of the other coinsured, cannot recover due to the intentional loss exclusion; and (3) the innocent coinsured cannot recover under the recently amended Iowa standard fire policy in Iowa Code 515.109. View "Postell v. Am. Family Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased a home along the Cedar River. At the time, they were told, incorrectly, that the property was not in a special flood hazard area and that flood insurance would not be required as a condition of their loan. Plaintiffs received the same erroneous information when they refinanced their loan to pay for remodeling. Years later, their loan servicer was advised that the property actually was in a special flood hazard area. However, this information was not passed along to Plaintiffs until after their home had flooded and it was too late to buy flood insurance. Plaintiffs brought suit against the lender as well as the loan servicer. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. The Supreme Court (1) reversed in part, finding a claim could potentially exist based on Restatement (Second) of Torts, 551(2); and (2) affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment. Remanded. View "Bagelmann v. First Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law

In this breach of contract case, the Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based on several rulings by the district court that Defendant claimed materially affected his rights and denied him a fair trial. The district court refused Defendant's request to exclude exhibits disclosed by Plaintiff the day before trial in violation of the district court's pretrial scheduling order. Additionally, the district court refused the request to declare a mistrial when Plaintiff testified to certain matters in violation of the district court's stipulated ruling on a motion in limine and denied Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial because it concluded the district court abused its discretion in admitting the exhibits into evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that Defendant had not shown the district court committed any error in its decisions during the trial that substantially prejudiced Defendant's rights to a fair trial. Thus, Defendant was not entitled to a new trial.

At issue in this case was (1) whether a life insurance agent owes a duty of care to the intended beneficiary of a life insurance policy, and (2) whether a life insurance agent can be liable for negligent misrepresentation when he provides information to the insured and the intended beneficiary regarding the beneficiary designation listed on the life insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the agent. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a life insurance agent owes a duty of care to an intended beneficiary of a life insurance policy; (2) a life insurance agent can be liable for negligent misrepresentation; and (3) genuine issues of material fact existed in this case, and therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted. Remanded.

At issue in this appeal was whether to judicially invalidate an insurance contract requirement that the insured file her lawsuit for underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) within two years of her auto accident. Plaintiff argued the deadline was unenforceable because, although she was still experiencing pain two years after the accident, only later did she discover the full extent of her injuries and realize her claim exceeded the other driver's liability limits. Plaintiff filed this UIM action against her insurer (Defendant) nearly six years after the accident. The district court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment enforcing the contractual deadline as reasonable. The court of appeals reversed, holding the two-year limitation period was unreasonable under the circumstances. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that the two-year UIM insurance policy deadline was enforceable as a matter of law because it matched the two-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code 614.1(2) for personal injury actions.

Plaintiff corporation filed an action against Defendant, a resident of Nebraska, for damages related to the termination of an apartment lease in Iowa where Defendant formerly resided. Plaintiff attempted to serve notice under Iowa's long-arm statute by certified mail at a forwarding address provided by Defendant upon the termination of his tenancy in the apartment. The notice, however, was returned by postal authorities. Plaintiff took no further action to achieve service, and the district court entered a default judgment against Defendant. Based on the default judgment, Plaintiff sought to garnish Defendant's wages at his Nebraska employer. Defendant sought to quash the garnishment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Iowa Code 617.3 in connection with the underlying action. The district court denied Defendant relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the underlying default judgment that gave rise to the garnishment in this case was void for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant as provided in section 617.3. Remanded with instructions to grant the motion to quash.

In this real estate dispute, some of the defendants filed a motion for sanctions, alleging Defendant brought the action to harass, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation. The district court ordered sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel for $1,000. The court of appeals affirmed the sanctions, ordering them payable to the jury and witness fund. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the court of appeals, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in fixing the amount of the sanction at $1,000; (2) the court abused its discretion by ordering the sanction be paid to the jury and witness fund; and (3) given Rule 1.413(1)'s preference of compensating victims, the district court should enter an order requiring Plaintiff's counsel to pay the sanction in equal sums to the defendants who sought the sanction as partial reimbursement of the legal fees they incurred in defending against the unfounded claims brought against them. Remanded.

An owner and contractor entered into an agreement for the construction of a new home. During construction, the owner refused to pay the contractor after discovering markups on the cost of materials. In response, the contractor halted construction and filed an action to enforce a mechanic's lien. The contractor subsequently filed a petition to foreclose the mechanic's lien. Although the contractor did not complete construction, the district court found the contractor rendered substantial performance under the contract and entered a judgment against the owner. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the court of appeals and reversed the district court, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that the contractor had substantially completed work for the owner. Remanded.

This case presented the question of whether an individual who made voluntary expenditures based on a mother's fraudulent representation that the individual had fathered her child has a cause of action against the mother for recovery of those payments. The district court granted the mother's motion to dismiss the action. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that such a cause of action may be pursued because it is consistent with traditional concepts of common law fraud, there is no prevailing public policy reason against recognizing such a cause of action, and Iowa's statutes do not speak to the issue. Remanded.

This case involved a dispute between Insured and Insurer regarding underinsured motorist benefits. The district court denied Insurer's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Insured with interest running from the date Insured filed his action against Insurer. Insured filed a motion to modify the judgment, asking the court to amend the judgment to start the running of interest from the date Insured filed his action against the original tortfeasors. The district court granted the motion and modified the judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) found that the order denying Insurer's motion for summary judgment was not reviewable; (2) vacated the court of appeals; (3) affirmed the district court's judgment required Insurer to pay its underinsured motorist limit to Insured; and (4) reversed the part of the judgment awarding interest from the date Insured filed the original action against the tortfeasors, holding that Insured failed to timely file his posttrial motion and that the district court erred when it considered the motion. Remanded.