Opinion ID: 2227977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Basis in Fact

Text: The defendants claim our decisions in Rodman and Walker were based on the erroneous assumption that consumers had the freedom to negotiate the terms and conditions of their liability insurance policies. They contend the vast majority of automobile policies sold in Iowa contain family member exclusions and the insurers will not provide policies without them. [1] The defendants argue we should invalidate the exclusions because of the insurer's unwillingness to provide coverage without them. We were confronted with a similar argument in Principal Casualty Insurance Co. which involved a family member exclusion in a homeowners policy. We rejected the argument, noting: No statutes or court cases have been cited that require a private citizen to obtain homeowners insurance that provides coverage for negligently injuring family members. We disagree with the [appellants'] contention that the lack of insurers willing to provide the type of coverage they seek in this case should cause us to act. We believe that this is a policy decision for the legislature, not the judiciary. Principal Cas. Ins. Co., 500 N.W.2d at 69. Our reasoning in Principal Casualty Insurance Co. is equally applicable in the context of family member exclusions in automobile liability policies. Any policy decisions mandating the availability of such coverage should come from the legislature.