Opinion ID: 1956237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Coverage Claims Under the Extended Endorsement.

Text: Next, we consider plaintiffs' contentions that Monte should be considered to be an insured person under the additional interest endorsement issued to Larry. In resolving that issue, we have recognized that an endorsement, if made part of a contract of insurance, is effective according to its terms. Hill v. Travelers Ins. Co., 146 Iowa 133, 124 N.W. 898 (1910). However, language contained in an endorsement or rider to an insurance policy will not be extended to affect other provisions of that policy that are not expressly mentioned in the endorsement. National Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Brumit, 98 So.2d 330, 332 (Fla.1957); Gulf Power Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 445 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla.App.1984). A leading insurance text states that, in the absence of an express intent the provisions of the rider or slip should supersede similar provisions of the policy, the terms of the rider or slip will be regarded as original terms which do not affect any of the existing terms of the contract. George J. Couch, Encyclopedia of Insurance Law § 4:28 (2d ed. 1959). Applying the foregoing principles of law to the present issue of interpretation, we think it is clear that, apart from those coverages, which by their nature pertain to designated motor vehicles, the coverages afforded under the additional interest endorsement were only extended to each interest hereinafter named as an insured. The only name that appears as such with respect to the additional interest endorsement is that of Larry Huebner. Family coverage was thus not contemplated in either the primary policy or the extended interest endorsement. The facts not being in dispute the issue for the court's determination was one of law in interpreting the policy, and the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. We have considered all issues presented and find no basis for reversing the district court's judgment. AFFIRMED.