Dale Boelman and Nancy Boelman v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 9
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Boelmans operate a contract-feeding hog operation; they fed and managed hogs under a Sew Nursery Agreement.
- They were required to insure buildings and hogs, including suffocation insurance, under a Farm-Guard policy reinsured by Grinnell Mutual.
- In Oct. 2008, about 535 of ~1254 nursery hogs suffocated while under Boelmans’ exclusive care, custody, or control.
- Policy provides Coverage A (liability to the public) and Coverage A-1 (damage to others’ property); both include care, custody, or control exclusions and a custom farming exclusion tied to gross receipts.
- A Custom Feeding Endorsement modified exclusions, specifying higher thresholds ($150,000) before Exclusion 6(a) bars indemnity and stating endorsement broadens protection for custom farming activities within limits.
- District court granted summary judgment for Boelmans based on reasonable expectations; court of appeals affirmed on ambiguity and then the Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding policy not ambiguous and no coverage as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Custom Feeding Endorsement create ambiguity and extend coverage? | Boelman argues endorsement broadens coverage. | Grinnell argues endorsement only raises threshold but does not override care/control exclusions. | Not ambiguous; endorsement does not provide coverage. |
| Is there a genuine issue of material fact on coverage under the Farm-Guard policy as written? | Boelman contends coverage extendable to custom farming losses. | Grinnell contends exclusions control; no coverage. | No genuine issue; policy as written excludes coverage. |
| Does the reasonable expectations doctrine apply to create coverage here? | Boelman asserts reasonable expectations support coverage. | Grinnell asserts doctrine not applicable due to clear language. | Doctrine not applicable; no reasonable expectations creating coverage. |
| If ambiguous, which interpretation governs? | Boelman would win if ambiguity favored insured. | Grinnell argues no ambiguity remains after endorsement. | Policy not ambiguous; interpretation favors insurer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 749 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa 2008) (plain policy language governs; ambiguity required for deviation)
- Ferguson v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 512 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1994) (cardinal rule: interpret exclusions strictly; adhesion contract)
- Connie’s Constr. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 227 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1975) (define terms; interpret policy in ordinary meaning)
- Schwieger v. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co., 685 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2012) (endorsed Farm-Guard policy; custom feeding endorsement context)
- Schwieger (same policy), - (-) (cited for endorsement interaction with care, custody, or control exclusions)
- Bobich v. Oja, 104 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1960) (endorsement control over language when conflict with policy terms)