Court Opinion

ID: 9661959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:55:54.983384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:35.314414
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in division I of Judge Reynold-son’s dissenting opinion. The accrual of a cause of action against the obligor in a bond depends upon the terms of the bond. 12 Am.Jur.2d Bonds § 34 at 500; 11 C.J.S. Bonds § 104a at 469. Section 123.95 of the 1971 Code (§ 123.92 of the 1973 Code) appears broad enough to authorize the commission to accept a bond permitting the ob-ligor to be sued either (a) only after judgment is obtained against the licensee or (b) merely if the licensee is liable. Insurance law is analogous here, and under that law, “The injured person may proceed directly against insurer before or after obtaining a judgment against insured where this is permitted by the terms of the policy.” 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1191b, at 109. Cf. 45 C. J.S. Insurance § 930 at 1051 (“Where the policy does not provide for a particular mode of establishing liability, insurer is liable on the happening of a specified contingency insured against, irrespective of whether or not the insured person seeks to enforce liability of insured.”).
A petition is vulnerable to a motion to dismiss only if the plaintiff could not recover under any state of facts provable under his petition. Rick v. Boegel, 205 N. W.2d 713 (Iowa). The present petition is broad enough to permit proof of a bond conditioned only on liability of, as distinguished from judgment against, the licensee.
The trial court rightly overruled the motion. The judgment should be affirmed.