Court Opinion

ID: 9720155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:18:20.598531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:13.716033
License: Public Domain

STUART, Justice
(concurring specially).
In this case defendant issued a liability insurance policy to Franklin County which excluded “accidents caused by or arising out of any condition existing in the highways or roads, or bridges or culverts except accidents resulting while maintenance or repair operations are being performed * 5‡⅛ ⅜ **
The trial court instructed the jury defendant had established the accident was caused by a condition in the highway. The only question remaining was whether “repair and maintenance operations were being performed”. If so, coverage would be afforded under this exception to the exclusion. The trial court gave the jury dictionary definitions of “repair” and “maintenance” and submitted the question to the jury which returned a verdict for plaintiff. The majority opinion holds the question was correctly submitted to the jury.
I cannot agree. In my opinion the trial court should have interpreted the language of the contract in the light of the undisputed facts and submitted to the jury only the question about which there was conflicting evidence. I concur specially rather than dissent because I believe the error was harmless under the jury’s verdict.
I agree with the distinction drawn by legal writers between construction of a contract and the interpretation of the words it contains. However, the courts, including ours, have not in all instances been consistent in recognizing this distinction. 17 Am.Jur.2d 624, Contracts, § 240.
It seems generally agreed that construction of a contract is for the court. There is a great deal of confusion, however, as to whether interpretation is a question of law or fact and if it is a fact question whether it is for the court or jury.
Corbin says: “If' the words of agreement, whether oral or written, are definite and undisputed, and if there is no doubt as to the relevant surrounding circumstances, the interpretation of the words is ordinarily held to be a matter for the court. Even if these circumstances are in dispute, the evidence as to what they were may be so clear and convincing that the court would set aside a verdict contrary to that evidence. The result of these rules is that in very many cases where the contract is in writing the interpretation of its language has been held to be for the court and not for the jury.” Corbin on Contracts, chapter 24, § 554, pp. 223-225.
Edwin W. Patterson states the applicable rule as follows:
“Even in a case in which a jury is the trier of issues of fact, the interpretation and construction of a written contract is within the exclusive province of the judge. While the judge may be called upon, in this process, to determine several issues of ‘fact’ such as those inferences referred to above, the relevant dictionaries, and relevant circumstances, yet the meaning of a written instrument is often called ‘a question of law’. This characterization of the rule is a surviving fiction (or semifiction). The continuation of the rule is justified by the judge’s superior equipment — his educa*176tion and legal experience — to interpret written instruments and to give them reliability. As a determination of law, the trial judge’s interpretation of the meaning of a written contract is not as conclusive upon an appellate court as his ‘findings of fact' would be and hence may be set aside as an ‘error of law’.” The Interpretation And Construction of Contracts, 64 Columbia Law Review 833, 836-837 (1964).
Corbin treats the issue as one of fact while Patterson treats it as one of law. It might be considered a difference in semantics if it were not for the effect on appellate review and the posture of the trial court’s decision on appeal.
I have difficulty identifying the issue as one of fact when the evidence is undisputed and not subject to different inferences. Definitions found in the cases or dictionaries are authorities supporting a legal conclusion, not evidence raising a fact question. But even if it were treated as a fact question, all sources of possible definitions should be available to the finder of fact. These indispensible tools are not available to juries.
I agree that if extrinsic evidence is offered which is disputed or from which different inferences may be drawn, the interpretation of the words of a contract should be submitted to the jury. But, in the absence of extrinsic evidence or if the extrinsic evidence is such that it is subject to only one conclusion, the issue is one for the court, whether it be considered one of fact or law. The following authorities lend support to this position.
General Casualty Co. v. Hines (1968), 261 Iowa 738, 745, 156 N.W.2d 118, 122-123; Fetters v. City of Des Moines (1967), 260 Iowa 490, 494, 149 N.W.2d 815, 818; Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic Assn. (1967), 260 Iowa 1061, 1069, 152 N.W.2d 293, 298; Morris Plan Co. v. Bingham Feed and Grain Co. (1966), 259 Iowa 404, 415-416, 143 N.W.2d 404, 412; Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery (1953), 245 Iowa 147, 160, 60 N.W.2d 110, 118; Rapp v. Linebarger (1910), 149 Iowa 429, 438, 128 N.W. 55; Flores v. Barman (1955), 130 Cal.App.2d 282, 279 P.2d 81, 84; Quader-Kino A. G. v. Nebenzal (Cal.1950), 35 Cal.2d 287, 217 P.2d 650, 659; West v. Brenner (1964), 88 Idaho 44, 396 P.2d 115, 118; Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Food, Inc. (Minn.1959), 256 Minn. 339, 98 N.W.2d 257, 267-268; Bauman v. Midland Union Ins. Co. (1952), 261 Wis. 449, 53 N.W.2d 529, 530; 44 Am.Jur.2d 1007-1008, Insurance, § 2064; 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1368, pp. 599-600 ; 88 C.J.S. Trial § 217, pp. 499-500; Anno. 65 A.L.R. 648, 650-651.
When we apply these principles to this case we find no extrinsic evidence offered relating to the intended meaning of “except accidents resulting while maintenance and repair operations are being performed” in the policy. No circumstances surrounding its execution are shown. The only extrinsic evidence related to the purpose of barricades generally and this one in particular. There was evidence barricades, signs and lights are to warn the public of the danger, to protect the workmen and equipment and to prevent interference with the progress of the work. There was also evidence the barricades, signs and lights were installed the day after the approach to the bridge washed out and that the accident happened three days later. No equipment was moved to the job and no filling operation commenced until about two weeks after the accident.
If we interpret the provision most favorably to the insured, General Casualty Co. v. Hines (1968), 261 Iowa 738, 744, 156 N. W.2d 118, 122, we should hold that repair and maintenance operations are being performed from the time the first acts necessary to repair and maintenance are done and so instruct the jury. This instruction would still leave for the jury the determination of the factual question as to whether this particular barricade was installed as a first step in repairs and maintenance or whether it was just to warn and protect *177the public since further work was not performed until over two weeks later.
In Youngwirth v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co. (1966), 258 Iowa 974, 981, 140 N.W.2d 881, 885, we held the interpretation of the exclusionary clause of the insurance policy was for the court as a matter of law, but held a jury question existed as to whether he was in fact in the course of his employment. The result was similar to the one I am urging here.
I would concur in the result and hold that the submission of the broader question to the jury was harmless error in view of the verdict.
MASON, J., joins in this special concurrence.