Court Opinion

ID: 9662415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:08:32.019355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:39.342099
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(dissenting).
I think the quoted language of the certificate is at best ambiguous. The administrator contends with a good deal of reason that “the original scheduled balance” means the original balance on the schedule, which was $2680.20, rather than the balance on the original schedule at the time of death, which was $1518.78. To make “original scheduled balance” mean the balance “at the time of death,” one must say that the phrase “at the time of death” refers back to “original scheduled balance,” but it appears instead to refer to “the net amount necessary to discharge the indebtedness.”
If the language is ambiguous as I believe, the familiar rule applies that since Pacific drafted the certificate we construe the language against it and in favor of the insured. Lindstrom v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 203 N.W.2d 623 (Iowa) (group policy); Wall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 228 Iowa 119, 289 N.W. 901 (life policy); Zeigler v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 219 Iowa 872, 259 N.W. 769 (group); Murphy v. New York Life Ins. Co., 219 Iowa 609, 258 N.W. 749 (life). The evidence contains no indication that when Dublinske procured the insurance, he knew Pacific held the view of the meaning of the language which it now asserts.
I agree with the majority as to exemplary damages, but would reverse and direct that judgment be entered for the administrator for $2680.20, interest, and costs.
REYNOLDSON, HARRIS and McCOR-MICK, JJ., join in this dissent.