Opinion ID: 1704082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Public PolicyCase Law.

Text: Farm & City next contends that several of this court's recent decisions constitute a general pronouncement that courts should protect individuals and the public generally from the financial burdens imposed by automobile accidents. It cites as examples of such a broad public policy the cases of Shook v. Crabb, 281 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa 1979) (abrogating interspousal immunity), Bierkamp v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577 (Iowa 1980) (guest statute violates Iowa constitution), and Turner v. Turner, 304 N.W.2d 786 (Iowa 1981) (abrogating absolute parental immunity). Those cases do remove certain common law and statutory restrictions which previously foreclosed some persons from seeking recovery for personal injuries in motor vehicle and other mishaps. They do not, however, declare a judicial policy requiring automobile insurers to reimburse all persons injured by negligent operators of insured vehicles. It is noteworthy that in Shook, the first of the cases upon which Farm & City relies, we said: We first note that the terms of insurance policies are, or can be, controlled by the parties. To the extent that insurance companies fear collusive actions, they can either limit the scope of coverage or make appropriate adjustments in premiums. 281 N.W.2d at 620. Our legislature has expressed in chapter 321A an intent to allow motorists considerable freedom to decide what automobile liability coverage, if any, they wish to procure. That freedom to contract is also highlighted in our cases. The freedom of individuals to contract is not taken lightly by this court. Skyline Harvestore Systems v. Centennial Insurance Co., 331 N.W.2d at 109. We do not find in Iowa statutes and case law the overriding public policy through which Farm & City would have us nullify American Family's exclusionary clause.