Title: Kats v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
Citation: 490 N.W.2d 60
Docket Number: 91-1301
State: Iowa
Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court
Date: September 23, 1992

490 N.W.2d 60 (1992) Lorinda KATS, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Keith Mulder, Appellant, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 91-1301. Supreme Court of Iowa. September 23, 1992. *61 Randall A. Roos, Sioux Center, for appellant. Jeffrey A. Sar of Baron, Sar, Goodwin, Gill &amp; Lohr, Sioux City, for appellee. Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and LARSON, SCHULTZ, NEUMAN, and ANDREASEN, JJ. LARSON, Justice. This case involves a claim under an underinsured motorist provision in an automobile policy provided by American Family Mutual Insurance Company. The district court denied underinsured coverage for the accidental death of the stepson of the named insured, and the stepson's administrator appealed. We affirm. Keith Mulder died in a one-car accident as a passenger in a car owned and operated by Michael Vander Woude. Mulder was a resident in the home of his mother, Lorinda Kats, and his stepfather, Michael E. Kats. The driver of the car, Vander Woude, was an underinsured motorist. The estate settled with Vander Woude and then filed its claim against Michael Kats' insurance company on its underinsured motorist provision. American Family Mutual had issued separate policies to Kats covering each of his three vehicles. Each policy contained this provision with respect to underinsured motorists: (Emphasis added.) The policies defined "insured person" to include the named insured, Michael Kats, his spouse, and all resident relatives in the home. "Relative" in turn was defined as (Emphasis added.) American Family denied underinsured coverage because Keith owned a car at the time of his death and was therefore not a "relative" under the language quoted above. The administrator does not claim otherwise; it is undisputed that the decedent, as the owner of a car, was not a covered "relative" under the policy. The administrator claims, however, that this exclusion violates Iowa Code section 516 A. 2 (1989) and is therefore void. Iowa Code section 516 A. 1 provides: (Emphasis added.) The administrator contends that, under section 516 A. 2, exclusions from uninsured coverage are only permitted if they "are designed to avoid duplication of insurance or other benefits [`stacking']." In this case, the exclusion in question is not aimed at "stacking" of coverage and is therefore not permitted by section 516 A. 2, according to the argument. *62 We agree with American Family that the application of section 516 A. 1 turns on whether Keith Mulder was a "person insured under such policy." If he was, then the company could exclude coverage only to avoid "stacking." If he was not an insured person, underinsured motorist coverage is not required by section 516 A. 1 to be afforded on his behalf. This is consistent with the prevailing view. As one court has noted, Robertson v. Cumis Ins. Co., 355 So. 2d 1371, 1373 (La.App.1978). Here, Kats' policies provided by specific amendments that Keith was excluded from its coverage. Each of the policies provided: /s/ Mike Kats The insurance company argues that, because Keith Mulder was not a "person named under such policy," section 516 A. 1 does not require that the policy provide uninsured motorist coverage for him, and it is not necessary to decide whether such exclusion violates section 516 A. 2. In Famuliner v. Farmers Insurance Co., 619 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.1981), the court addressed a similar issue. The policy in that case defined a "relative" as "a relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household, provided neither such relative nor his spouse owns an automobile." The court said: Id. at 897. In Farmers Insurance Co. v. Miller, 87 Wash. 2d 70, 549 P.2d 9 (1976), the court said: Id. 549 P.2d at 12. And, in Valiant Insurance Co. v. Webster, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1990), the court noted that, Id. at 410. We agree with the analysis of these cases and hold that section 516 A. 1 requires underinsured coverage only for persons who are otherwise insured under the policy. Because of the specific exclusion for the decedent in this case, he did not fit within the definition of persons covered by the underinsured provisions. A second issue, whether the underinsured motorist provision covers the mother's claim for loss of consortium, was not *63 raised in the district court, and we do not consider it here. AFFIRMED.