Opinion ID: 1725366
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We first consider the issues raised on plaintiff's appeal.

Text: The parties are not in dispute regarding the basic facts leading up to plaintiff's loss. On December 12, 1971, plaintiff's property was covered by a blanket farm package insurance policy issued by defendant Continental Western Insurance Company. Included in that policy, under a heading entitled Special Provisions was the following language: (i) Theft: Coverage on property insured in this form is extended to include direct loss by theft, excluding mysterious disappearance, inventory shortage, wrongful conversion, embezzlement and escape.   . Sometime in early December 1971, plaintiff advertised for the sale of 50 head of cattle. In response to that advertisement, a person who called himself Steve Weston inquired about, and later negotiated for the purchase of the livestock. During the negotiations Weston made several false and fraudulent representations. On December 12, 1971 Weston tendered to plaintiff a cashier's check for the purchase price of the cattle and hauled them away. This check was later found to be a forgery. Two of the three men involved were later convicted of interstate transportation of stolen cattle. See United States v. Osborne, 8 Cir., 482 F.2d 1354. When plaintiff sought to recover his loss under terms of the policy set out above, defendant refused payment asserting that the term theft was synonymous with larceny and did not encompass the offense of false pretenses. The trial court agreed with defendant's contention. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was sustained. Plaintiff's action to recover the value of the cattle was dismissed. The primary issue on plaintiff's appeal is the meaning of theft as used in the policy. II. The principles governing our review have been clearly enunciated in a number of our recent opinions. Where, as here, the trial court made his findings as a matter of law, we are not bound by his determination if he applied an improper rule of law. C & J Fert., Inc. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., Iowa, 227 N.W.2d 169; Connie's Const. v. Fireman's Fund Ins., Iowa, 227 N.W.2d 207. When interpreting ambiguous words in insurance contracts, the language should be interpreted from the viewpoint of an ordinary person, not a specialist or expert. Benzer v. Iowa Mutual Tornado Insurance Ass'n., Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 385, 388. Where insurance contracts require interpretation, the courts will adopt the construction most favorable to the insured. City of Spencer v. Hawkeye Security Insurance Co., Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 406, 408. In construction and application of a standardized insurance contract, the courts strive to effectuate the reasonable expectations of the average member of the public who accepts it. C & J Fert., Inc. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., supra, 227 N.W.2d at 176.