Opinion ID: 1857696
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Against State Farm.

Text: Hollingsworth was the named insured under a State Farm car policy that provided $100,000 of uninsured motor vehicle coverage. The policy provided: We will pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. The bodily injury must be caused by an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Hollingsworth alleges in his petition that he was injured as a result of Schminkey's negligent operation and maintenance of his uninsured vehicle. He claims: (1) State Farm breached the terms of the contract in refusing to pay the benefits provided by the policy, (2) State Farm was negligent in failing to pay the benefits and in investigating and determining his policy claim, and (3) State Farm's conduct, in failing to pay benefits and in investigating and determining his claim, was in bad faith. Hollingsworth asks for both compensatory and punitive damages in his negligent breach of contract and bad faith claims.
In its ruling on State Farm's motion for summary judgment, the district court found there must be a causal connection, less than the notion of proximate cause, between the use, operation, or maintenance of the uninsured vehicle and the injury. Under the record before it, the court found Schminkey's vehicle was a but for cause of Hollingsworth's injury. However, the court concluded the injury was caused by lifting Schminkey, it was not directly caused by Schminkey's use or maintenance of the car. Determining the legal effect of an insurance policy is a question of law for the court. Hornick v. Owners Ins. Co., 511 N.W.2d 370, 371 (Iowa 1993). We are not bound by the district court's determination of the law or the conclusions reached by the court from the undisputed facts. See Falczynski v. Amoco Oil Co., 533 N.W.2d 226, 230 (Iowa 1995). If the district court applied erroneous rules of law which materially affected its decision, we will reverse. Id. On appeal, our task is to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. Red Giant Oil Co. v. Lawlor, 528 N.W.2d 524, 528 (Iowa 1995). When construing the uninsured motorist provisions of an auto policy, we review both the language of the policy and the provisions of section 516A.1 of the Iowa Code. Hornick, 511 N.W.2d at 372. The terms of the policy are read together with the terms of the statute, which form a basic part of the policy, to effectuate the intent of the contracting parties. Mewes v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 530 N.W.2d 718, 722 (Iowa 1995). Under the statute, protection is extended to persons who are legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle ... because of bodily injury ... caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such uninsured ... motor vehicle. Iowa Code § 516A.1 (1993). Here, the language of the policy and the statute are substantially identical. Although arising out of is not defined in the policy, nor have we defined the statutory phrase, we have construed this phrase in a homeowners policy exclusion. See Kalell v. Mutual Fire & Auto. Ins. Co., 471 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 1991). In Kalell we recognized that, in construing coverage clauses, the words arising out of are given a broad, general, and comprehensive meaning. Id. [The words] are commonly understood to mean originating from, growing out of, or flowing from, and require only that there be some causal relationship between injury and risk for which coverage is provided. Id. A policy provision covering injury arising out of the use of the vehicle conveys a more liberal concept of causation than proximate cause in its traditional legal sense. Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Concrete Prods. Co., 203 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Iowa 1973). Our construction of the phrase is also consistent with the construction given by other courts. See 7 Am.Jur.2d Automobile Insurance § 194, at 700-01 (1980). Although the phrase imports a concept of causation, the words are of much broader significance than caused by. Id. at 703. However, the mere fact that an automobile is the situs of the accident is insufficient to establish the necessary nexus between the use and the accident to warrant the conclusion that the accident arose out of such use. Id. at 704. See also Larry D. Scheafer, Annotation, Automobile Liability Insurance: What Are Accidents or Injuries Arising Out of Ownership, Maintenance, or Use of Insured Vehicle, 15 A.L.R.4th 10 (1982); 1 Alan I. Widiss, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance § 11.4, at 531 (2d ed. 1992) (the use of the uninsured vehicle must relate relatively directly to the accident that caused the claimant's injury). We believe there is a genuine issue for trial upon Hollingsworth's insurance policy claim. Based on the facts in the record, a jury could find that Hollingsworth is legally entitled to recover damages from Schminkey for the bodily injury caused by the accident arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of Schminkey's uninsured vehicle. Schminkey used his uninsured station wagon after learning the exhaust system had been damaged and carbon monoxide was being emptied into the passenger area. He became asphyxiated while driving the vehicle into his garage. The motor continued to run after the vehicle hit the corner of the garage. The tires continued to rotate until they became so hot they generated smoke and then a fire. Hollingsworth was injured while removing Schminkey from the burning station wagon. A jury might also conclude that Hollingsworth's act of lifting Schminkey is not an intervening act or force that breaks the chain of causal events between Schminkey's negligent operation of his vehicle and Hollingsworth's injury. Summary judgment should not have been granted to State Farm on this contract claim.
We find the district court's summary judgments in favor of State Farm on the negligence and bad faith claims should be affirmed for two reasons. First, Iowa does not recognize a cause of action for negligent failure to pay or investigate an insurance claim. Hollingsworth claims that State Farm negligently failed to pay uninsured benefits or negligently investigated and determined the insured's entitlement to benefits. In Reuter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 469 N.W.2d 250, 254 (Iowa 1991), we held: an insurer's ... negligent failure to investigate or evaluate a claim is only an element by which insured may prove that no lawful basis for refusal existed. The insurer's subpar investigation cannot in and of itself sustain a tort action for bad faith. Reuter, 469 N.W.2d at 254. Second, Hollingsworth did not challenge on appeal the court's ruling on the negligence and bad faith claims against State Farm. He cited no authority and made no arguments in his brief as to any claimed error on these claims. Our appellate rules require a party's brief to state the issue or issues presented for review. Mueller v. St. Ansgar State Bank, 465 N.W.2d 659, 659 (Iowa 1991). When a party, in an appellate brief, fails to state, argue, or cite to authority in support of an issue, the issue may be deemed waived. See Iowa R.App.P. 14(a)(3).