Opinion ID: 2221893
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Enforceability of Exclusion.

Text: Having concluded that actual duplication is not required, we now examine whether the exclusion upon which Westfield relies was designed to avoid duplication of insurance. See Iowa Code § 516A.2(1). The record shows that Miller purchased a liability policy on his motorcycle but rejected the insurer's offer of UM coverage. Clearly, if Miller had purchased UM coverage under his motorcycle policy, there would have been a duplication of UM coverage. See LeMars Mut. Ins. Co. v. Joffer, 574 N.W.2d 303, 311 (Iowa 1998) (enforcing owned-but-not-insured exclusion in UM coverage in automobile policy in which same coverage was provided under insured's motorcycle policy). It was this anticipated duplication that the exclusion was intended to avoid. Under these circumstances, we conclude the exclusion satisfies the statutory requirement that it be designed to avoid the duplication of insurance. See Iowa Code § 516A.2(1). Consequently, the exclusion is enforceable, and the trial court did not err in upholding the validity of the owned-but-not-insured exclusion in Westfield's UM coverage. AFFIRMED.