Opinion ID: 1654796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Shawna's Liability Policy. The relevant portions of Shawna's liability policy state:

Text: Section 1liabilityCoverage A We will: 1. Pay damages which an insured becomes legally liable to pay because of: a. bodily injury to others, and b. damage to or destruction of property including loss of its use, Caused by accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of your car ... We have held that a consortium claim consists of damages which an insured is legally liable to pay because of bodily injury to others. See Hinners v. Pekin Ins. Co., 431 N.W.2d 345, 345-46 (Iowa 1988). Unless there is an exclusion, Clinton's claim is covered under Shawna's liability coverage. We must therefore determine if there is language in the policy that would exclude Clinton's claim. The policy provides: THERE IS NO COVERAGE: . . . 2. FOR ANY BODILY INJURY TO: . . . c. ANY INSURED OR ANY MEMBER OF AN INSURED'S FAMILY RESIDING IN THE INSURED'S HOUSEHOLD. State Farm asserts that this exclusion precludes coverage for Clinton's consortium damages because Clinton's loss-of-consortium claim is derivative of Skye's bodily injury, which was excluded from coverage by virtue of this exclusion. As noted earlier, however, a loss-of-consortium claim is not for an injury to the child, but for an injury to the parent. Consequently, the fact that the household exclusion applies to Skye's claim does not automatically mean that it also applies to Clinton's claim. Under the plain language of the policy, we conclude the exclusion does not apply to Clinton's independent claim for loss of consortium. It is undisputed that Clinton is not an insured under Shawna's policy, nor did he reside in her household. We therefore find that State Farm has coverage under Shawna's liability policy for Clinton's loss-of-consortium claim, subject to the policy's $100,000 per person limit. C. Clinton's Underinsured Policy. On the date of the accident, Clinton had his own automobile insurance policy with State Farm. This policy provided coverage for liability, as well as underinsured and uninsured motor vehicles, subject to $100,000 each person and $300,000 each accident limits. State Farm claims Clinton must have suffered a bodily injury for there to be coverage under his underinsured or uninsured coverage. The relevant portion of Clinton's policy states: 5. SECTION III  UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AND UNDERINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE COVERAGES . . . . We will pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver or an uninsured motor vehicle. The bodily injury must be sustained by an insured.... (Emphasis added). The policy defines bodily injury as bodily injury to a person and sickness, disease or death that results from it. State Farm argues that because the bodily injury was to Skye and not Clinton, the language the bodily injury must be sustained by an insured precludes recovery. Although State Farm accurately analyzes the contractual language, we have held that an insurer cannot offer underinsured motorist coverage more restrictive than that required by statute. Wetherbee v. Econ. Fire & Cas. Co., 508 N.W.2d 657, 659 (Iowa 1993). In Wetherbee, the insurance company argued that the insured must establish her own bodily injury in order to recover under the underinsured motorist provision of her policy for her loss-of-consortium claim. We rejected that argument, stating section 516A.1 [uninsured, underinsured, or hit-and-run motorists' statute] does not require the insured to have sustained the bodily injury. The statute requires only that there be bodily injury to a person which results in damage to the insured. Id. at 661; see also Hinners, 431 N.W.2d at 346-47 ([T]he coverage mandated by section 516A.1 is not limited to claims for injury to the insured; it merely requires policy coverage for damages arising out of bodily injury.). Because of section 516A.1, State Farm's requirement that Clinton must sustain a bodily injury in order to collect under his own underinsured motorist coverage is of no effect. See Hinners, 431 N.W.2d at 346 ([I]f a policy's provisions are contrary to the [underinsured motorist] statute, the policy provisions are rendered ineffective, and the statute controls.). He therefore has a claim under his underinsurance coverage. Clinton's insurance coverage, however, is restricted by the limits-of-liability language in the policy. The policy states: COVERAGES W AND W4 [UNDERINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE COVERAGE] . . . . 3. The most we pay will be the lesser of: a. the amount by which the insured's damages for bodily injury exceed the amount paid to the insured by or for any person or organization who is or may be held legally liable for the bodily injury or; b. the limits of liability of this coverage. Pursuant to this policy provision, Clinton's recovery under his underinsured motorist coverage is limited to the amount his damages exceed payments made on his claim under Shawna's policy, subject to the $100,000 UIM limit. See Iowa Code § 516A.2 (stating underinsured motorist coverage may include terms, exclusions, limitations, conditions, and offsets which are designed to avoid duplication of insurance or other benefits). D. Clinton's Uninsured Policy. Alternatively, Clinton argues that if he is not entitled to recover under the liability portion of Shawna's policy, Shawna would be an uninsured motorist and he can recover uninsured benefits from his policy. Because we have determined that Shawna was insured for Clinton's claim, the uninsured coverage has no application.