Summary
enforcing exclusion to deny UIM coverage
Summary of this case from Thomas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Opinion
No. 2-1008 / 02-0688.
Filed March 12, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, RICHARD E. MEADOWS, Jr., Judge.
A plaintiff appeals from the district court's order dismissing his claim. AFFIRMED.
Robert Breckenridge of Johnson, Hester, Walter, Breckenridge Duker, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellant.
Robert McMonagle of Lane Waterman, Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Brian D. James appeals from the order dismissing his claim for underinsured motorist coverage against his insurer, American States Insurance Company. James claims the trial court erred in enforcing the owned-but-not insured provision in the policy. We affirm.
The matter was submitted on stipulated facts. An automobile struck James's tractor as he drove it on Highway 34. James suffered serious injuries and, because the automobile driver was at fault, he received payment of an amount equal to her insurance policy limits. He then claimed $50,000 in underinsured coverage from American States. American States refused to pay citing the owned-but-not-insured exclusion in the policy. After trial to the court, the petition was dismissed.
This matter was tried at law and our review is for errors of law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4.
James's policy contained the following language:
Exclusions — Underinsured Motorists Coverage
A. We do not provide underinsured motorists coverage for "bodily injury" sustained by any person:
1. While "occupying" or when struck by any motor vehicle owned by you which is not insured for this coverage under this policy. This includes a trailer of any type used with that vehicle.
A farm tractor is a motor vehicle. Welchans v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 645 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa Ct.App. 2002).
Although James owned the tractor he was driving, it was not insured by American States. We conclude the clear language of the policy excluded coverage for James's bodily injuries while driving his tractor. Such owned-but-not-insured exclusions have been upheld. Miller v. Westfield Ins. Co., 606 N.W.2d 301, 307 (Iowa 2000); Welchans, 645 N.W.2d at 3.
We must also reject James's contention that the exclusion violates Iowa Code Chapter 516A. Identical owned-but-not-insured language was approved in Miller. Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306-07. Welchans affirmed the applicability of the exclusion in identical factual circumstances. Welchans, 645 N.W.2d at 4-5.