Opinion ID: 2139090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The special verdict was in response to the following inquiry posed by the court:

Text: [W]hat is the total of the actual cash value of property (building and contents) of the plaintiff directly lost which was caused by the fire on February 4, 1982, without taking into consideration the deductible provisions of the policy or any amounts received from any other insurance company? Allmon thinks the $75,000 the jury answered in response was in addition to the $80,000 he received from UFC. The trial court and court of appeals agreed. Plainly, if the total loss was $75,000 Allmon is entitled to no recovery under this policy because he already received more than that for the same loss under the other policy. [1] Allmon's recovery is limited to his actual loss. The rule is that an insured who has recovered for a loss from one company cannot recover for the same loss from a second one. And an insured who has recovered for part of a loss from one company can recover from a second company only enough to make up the full amount of the loss. 44 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 1781 (1982); 45 C.J.S. Insurance § 922(a) (1946). II. The controlling question in the appeal has to do with the meaning of special verdict three. The jury fixed the loss at $75,000. Allmon argues, and the trial court agreed, that the $75,000 was in addition to the $80,000 Allmon had already received from UFC. But there is no way we can understand the trial court's question and the jury's answer to mean this. The jury was told to reach its determination without taking into consideration ... any amounts received from any other insurance company.... We think the jury was told to fix Allmon's loss and to do so as if there were no other insurance. Allmon would have us strike the words without taking into consideration and supplant them with the words in addition to. The trial court which formulated the words of the special verdict obviously thought otherwise. But the jury was bound to respond to the words' clear meaning, not the judge's subjective understanding of them. We conclude and hold that the jury fixed Allmon's total loss at $75,000. Because this was $5000 less than he had already received, he is entitled to no recovery from either defendant in this suit. It was error for the trial court to conclude otherwise. This holding makes it unnecessary for us to explore other issues joined at trial and urged on appeal. III. We feel obliged to point out a violation of Iowa rule of appellate procedure 16, which requires that a brief or appendix shall have pages eight and one half by eleven inches. Both the appendix and its separate volume of exhibits contain pages in excess of the length allowed under the rule. It should be unnecessary for us to justify or defend our rule. It does have a purpose beyond uniformity. Notably, a number of the appendices and briefs in each appeal are bound into books for filing in various law libraries. Overlength pages play obvious havoc with the process. Counsel for appellant are directed within fourteen days to resubmit eighteen copies of their appendix and volume of exhibits with all attachments reduced to the allowable size. Such copies are to be furnished at appellant's counsels' own expense and are not to be taxed as additional costs. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED.