Opinion ID: 1704082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Public PolicyDecisions From Other States.

Text: Finally, Farm & City asks that we follow the lead of those courts in other states which have invalidated exclusion clauses similar to that in American Family's policy. We decline to do so for several reasons. First, we distinguish the cases from states which have mandatory automobile insurance laws. See, e.g., Bishop v. Allstate Insurance Co., 623 S.W.2d 865 (Ky.1981); Community Service Insurance Co. v. Shears, 89 Mich.App. 372, 280 N.W.2d 532 (1979). Neither are we persuaded that we should adopt the holding or rationale in Mutual Enumclaw Insurance Co. v. Wiscomb, 97 Wash.2d 203, 643 P.2d 441 (1982), affirming on rehearing 95 Wash.2d 373, 622 P.2d 1234 (1980). There, the Washington Supreme Court invalidated on public policy grounds a family exclusion clause, but that case is distinguishable for two reasons: no insurance policy without that clause was available in the state of Washington; and the Washington court had previously recognized a strong public policy of assuring protection to the innocent victims of automobile accidents. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Wiscomb, 643 P.2d at 443 (citing Touchette v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Co., 80 Wash.2d 327, 332, 494 P.2d 479 (1972)). Here, Farm & City has neither contended nor established that all automobile insurance policies issued in Iowa contain the challenged exclusionary clause. Furthermore, our statutes and decided cases disclose no such broad public policy as was relied upon by the Washington Supreme Court. The trial court correctly refused to invalidate on public policy grounds the exclusionary clause in American Family's automobile liability insurance policy. AFFIRMED.