Court Opinion

ID: 9686758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:05:14.99926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:21.939176
License: Public Domain

Hays and Thompson, JJ.
(supplement to dissenting opinion).
Since the filing of the original opinion and dissent in this case, the majority has amended its opinion by adding thereto a statement from 123 A. L. R. 1008, annotation, and by referring to and quoting from the Minnesota case of Donarski v. Lardy, 251 Minn. 358, 88 N.W.2d 7. Without doubt the latter case supports the majority opinion herein. However, we think attention should be called to the fact that the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized that it was following a minority view. It did not attempt to support its position by claiming it represented the considered thinking of the majority of courts which have decided the question.
After citing cases, including our own Sorensen v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Association, 226 Iowa 1316, 286 N.W. 494, 123 A. L. R. 1000 (but omitting several others), which hold to *1066the same view that the parties may contract as to what notice may be given and proof of receipt is not necessary to effect a cancellation, the Minnesota Court said: “It is clear that those cases represent the weight of authority in this country with respect to the issue at bar.” 88 N.W.2d 7, 10. It then proceeded to disagree with the majority of jurisdictions upon what seems to us to be a process of strained and illogical reasoning. The net result of our own decision is that we are overruling our Soren-sen case which has been the law in Iowa for nearly twenty years, and upon the authority of which thousands of contracts have been made, with support from only three jurisdictions — Michigan, Kansas and Minnesota — against the great weight of authority and, as we believe, upon unsound logic.