Opinion ID: 2013602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicable Principles of Review.

Text: This court reviews a summary judgment ruling on error. Nicodemus v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 612 N.W.2d 785, 786 (Iowa 2000); Iowa R.App. P. 6.4. A summary judgment will be affirmed when the moving party has shown no genuine issues of material fact exist and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Whicker v. Goodman, 576 N.W.2d 108, 110 (Iowa 1998); accord Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3). In a case such as the one before us, where the facts are undisputed, this court simply determines whether the district court correctly applied the law. Krause v. Krause, 589 N.W.2d 721, 724 (Iowa 1999). When the parties offer no extrinsic evidence on the meaning of policy language, the interpretation and construction of an insurance policy are questions of law for the court. Pudil v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 633 N.W.2d 809, 811 (Iowa 2001); Tropf v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 558 N.W.2d 158, 159 (Iowa 1997). We view the provisions of an insurance policy in a light favorable to the insured. A.Y. McDonald Indus. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 475 N.W.2d 607, 619 (Iowa 1991). [T]he cardinal principle is that the intent of the parties must control; and except in cases of ambiguity this is determined by what the policy itself says. Id. at 618. Notwithstanding the principle that the meaning of an insurance contract is generally determined from the language of the policy, statutory law may also affect our interpretation of policy provisions. In discussing the application and effect of Iowa's uninsured/underinsured motorist statute, chapter 516A, this court has stated: A statute that authorizes a contract of insurance has application beyond merely permitting or requiring such a policy. The statute itself forms a basic part of the policy and is treated as if it had actually been written into the policy. The terms of the policy are to be construed in light of the purposes and intent of the applicable statute. Tri-State Ins. Co. v. De Gooyer, 379 N.W.2d 16, 17 (Iowa 1985) (citations omitted). Consequently, when a policy provision conflicts with a statutory requirement, the policy provision is ineffective and the statute controls. Matthess v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 548 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 1996). Thus, a determination of the coverage provided by the Grinnell Mutual policy also requires an interpretation of the pertinent statutes. Our goal in the interpretation of legislative enactments is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Mewes v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 530 N.W.2d 718, 722 (Iowa 1995). This intent is gleaned from the words used in the statute. Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 577 N.W.2d 845, 847 (Iowa 1998). Although the court cannot enlarge or otherwise change the terms of a statute, [w]e will not construe a statute in a way that would produce impractical or absurd results. Carolan v. Hill, 553 N.W.2d 882, 887 (Iowa 1996). Rather, we seek a reasonable interpretation that will accomplish the purpose of the statute and redress the wrongs the legislature sought to remedy. Mewes, 530 N.W.2d at 722. With these general principles in mind, we turn to the issues at hand.