Court Opinion

ID: 9528179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:38:06.047464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:19.209092
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the result reached by the majority because it ignores virtually every rule by which we have heretofore adjudicated such cases and affords plaintiff ex post facto insurance coverage which it not only did not buy but which it knew it did not buy.
The majority revokes, at least for this case, the principle that in law cases tried to the court the findings are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence and that we view the evidence in its most favorable light to sustain rather than defeat those findings. Long v. Glidden Mutual Insurance Association, 215 N.W.2d 271, 272 (Iowa 1974). It does so by characterizing them as erroneously applied conclusions of law rather than findings of fact, although I find this clearly contrary to prior authority. Brammer v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company, 182 N.W.2d 169, 172, 173 (Iowa 1970); Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. Insurance Company of North America, (8th Cir. 1972), 459 F.2d 650, 653, 654; see also Rule 344(f)(1, 14, 17), Rules of Civil Procedure.
The result reached directly contravenes our previous decisions, particularly Long v. Glidden, supra, where we felt bound to hon- or the trial court’s findings that a loss had been shown under a theft policy. This court was divided 5 to 3 on that issue, with the dissenters arguing there was a total lack of evidence to support the trial court.
I concurred in the Long case for the same reason I dissent here. I could not say there, and I cannot say now, the trial court’s findings lacked substantial support on the disputed facts in either case.
It is interesting to note in Long our decision was bottomed on the failure of the policy to define “theft” and we therefore felt justified in giving it the “general and broad connotation” it usually has. In the present case “burglary” is clearly and unambiguously defined; but now the majority complains because it’s in the wrong place and in the wrong size type — this despite the universal rule of construction that a policy of insurance must be read and construed in its entirety. Hoefler v. Farm & City Insurance Company, 193 N.W.2d 538, 540 (Iowa 1972); Stover v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 189 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa 1971); Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. Insurance Company of North America, supra, 459 F.2d at 650; Mallinger v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 253 Iowa 222, 226, 111 N.W.2d 647, 651 (1961); Lichtentag v. Millers National Fire Insurance Company of Texas, 250 So.2d 105, 107 (C.A.La.1971).
While it may be very well to talk in grand terms about “mass advertising” by insurance companies and “incessant” assurances as to coverage which mislead the “unwary,” particularly about “fine-print” provisions, such discussion should somehow be related to the case under review. Our primary duty, after all, is to resolve this dispute for these litigants under this record.
There is total silence in this case concerning any of the practices the majority finds offensive; nor is there any claim plaintiff was beguiled by such conduct into believing it had more protection than it actually did.
The record is even stronger against the majority’s fine-print argument, the stereotype accusation which serves as a coup de grace in all insurance cases. Except for larger type on the face sheet and black (but not larger) print to designate divisions and sub-headings, the entire policies are of one size and style of print. To compare the face sheet with the body of the policy is like comparing a book’s jacket cover with the narrative content; and the use of black type or other means of emphasis to separate one part of an instrument from another is *183an approved editorial expedient which serves to assist, not hinder, readability. In fact many of our opinions, including that of the majority in the instant case, resort to that device.
Tested by any objective standard, the size and style of type used cannot be fairly described as “fine print.” The majority’s description, right or wrong, of the plight of consumers generally should not be the basis for resolving the case now before us.
Like all other appeals, this one should be decided on what the record discloses — a fact which the majority concedes but promptly disregards.
Crucial to a correct determination of this appeal is the disputed provision of each policy defining burglary as “the felonious abstraction of insured property * * * by a person making felonious entry * * by actual force and violence, of which force and violence there are visible marks made by tools, explosives, electricity or chemicals upon, or physical damage to, the exterior of the premises at the place of such entry * * The starting point of any consideration of that definition is a determination whether it is ambiguous. Yet the majority does not even mention ambiguity.
The purpose of such a provision, of course, is to omit from coverage “inside jobs” or those resulting from fraud or complicity by the assured. The overwhelming weight of authority upholds such provisions as legitimate in purpose and unambiguous in application. Annot. 99 A.L.R.2d 129, 134 (1965); 44 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 1400, § 1401 (1969); 10 Couch Cyclopedia of Insurance Law (2d Ed.) 42:128-42:1.30 (1962); 5 Appleman Insurance Law and Practice § 3176, § 3177; Lichtentag v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 250 So.2d 105, 107 (C.A.La.1971); Johnson v. Pacific Indemnity Company, (1966), 242 Cal.App.2d 878, 52 Cal.Rptr. 76, 79; Offutt v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 251 Md. 262, 247 A.2d 272, 276 (1968); Hazuka v. Maryland Casualty Company, 183 Neb. 336, 160 N.W.2d 174, 178 (1968); Swanson, Inc. v. Central Surety & Insurance Corporation, 343 Mo. 350, 121 S.W.2d 783, 786 (1938); Blank v. National Surety Company, 181 Iowa 648, 650, 651, 165 N.W. 46, 47 (1917).
Once this indisputable fact is recognized, plaintiff’s arguments virtually collapse. We may not — at least we should not — by any accepted standard of construction meddle with contracts which clearly and plainly state their meaning simply because we dislike that meaning, even in the case of insurance policies. Stover v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Corporation, 189 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa 1971); Hein v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 166 N.W.2d 363, 366 (Iowa 1969); Mallinger v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 253 Iowa 222, 226, 111 N.W.2d 647, 651 (1961); Wenthe v. Hospital Service, Inc., 251 Iowa 765, 768, 100 N.W.2d 903, 905 (1960); Hiatt v. Travelers Insurance Company, 197 Iowa 153, 156, 197 N.W. 3, 4, 33 A.L.R. 655 (1924).
Nor can the doctrine of reasonable expectations be applied here. We adopted that rule in Rodman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 208 N.W.2d 903, 906, 907 (Iowa 1973). We refused, however to apply it in that case, where we said:
“The real question here is whether the principle of reasonable expectations should be extended to cases where an ordinary layman would not misunderstand his coverage from a reading of the policy and where there are no circumstances attributable to the insurer which foster coverage expectations. Plaintiff does not contend he misunderstood the policy. He did not read it. He now asserts in retrospect that if he had read it he would not have understood it. He does not say he was misled by conduct or representations of the insurer. He simply asked trial court to rewrite the policy to cover his loss because if he had purchased his automobile insurance from another company the loss would have been covered, he did not know it was not covered, and if he had known it was not *184covered he would have purchased a different policy. Trial court declined to do so. We believe trial court correctly refused in these circumstances to extend the principle of reasonable expectations to impose liability.”
Yet here the majority would extend the doctrine far beyond the point of refusal in Rodman. Here we have affirmative and unequivocal testimony from an officer and director of the plaintiff corporation that he knew the disputed provision was in the policies because “it was just like the insurance policy I have on my farm.”
I cannot agree plaintiff may now assert it reasonably expected from these policies something it knew was not there.
These same observations should dispose of plaintiff’s claim of implied warranty, a theory incidentally for which there is no case authority at all. The majority apparently seeks to bring insurance contracts within the ambit of the Uniform Commercial Code governing sales of goods. I believe the definitional section of the Code itself precludes that notion. See § 554.2105, The Code. This should put an end to the majority’s argument that buying insurance protection is the same as buying groceries. The complete absence of support from other jurisdictions would also suggest it is indefensible. At least it has done so to some courts. See Drabbels v. Skelly Oil Company, 155 Neb. 17, 50 N.W.2d 229, 231 (Neb.1951).
The remaining ground upon which the majority invalidates the policies — uncon-scionability — has also been disavowed by the great majority of courts which have decided the question, usually in connection with public policy considerations. See Scanlon v. Western Fire Insurance Company, 4 Mich.App. 234, 144 N.W.2d 677, 679 (1966); Artess v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 429 S.W.2d 430, 433 (Tenn.1968); Limberis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 263 A.2d 83, 86 (Maine 1970); Abrams v. National Fire Insurance Company, 186 A.2d 232, 233 (D.C.Mun.App.1962); Johnson v. Pacific Indemnity Company, 52 Cal.Rptr. 76, 79, 242 Cal.App.2d 878 (1966); Lichentag v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas, 250 So.2d 105, 107 (C.A. La.1971); Klein & Brown, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, 59 Misc.2d 395, 299 N.Y.S.2d 298, 301-302 (1969); Offutt v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 251 Md. 262, 247 A.2d 272 (1968); Hazuka v. Maryland Casualty Company, 183 Neb. 336, 160 N.W.2d 174, 177, 178 (1968).
For these several reasons — the principal one being that the findings of the trial court have substantial evidentiary support — I would affirm the judgment.
MOORE, C. J., and REES and UHLEN-HOPP, JJ., join this dissent.