Simon Estes v. Progressive Classic Insurance Company, 2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 9

Estes, insured under Progressive Classic’s underinsured motorist coverage, sues after settlements with Rivers and Sam’s Club leave Progressive potentially liable up to $300,000.
Estes settled with Rivers for $231,449 and with Sam’s Club for $75,000, the latter without Progressive’s consent.
Progressive moved for summary judgment arguing consent-to-settlement and exhaustion clauses limited recovery; district court denied it.
A jury awarded Estes $1,189,486.11 in damages; district court entered judgment for $300,000 plus interest from Estes’s action against Progressive.
Estes moved to modify the judgment to begin interest from the underlying tort action; Progressive argued untimely.
Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court vacated and remanded with directions, holding certain issues non-reviewable and addressing timing of interest and posttrial motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the denial of summary judgment reviewable on appeal after trial?	Estes argues the denial should be reviewable.	Progressive contends such denial is non-reviewable after trial.	Not reviewable; summary-judgment denial upheld only for damages issues.
Was Estes’s posttrial motion to modify the judgment timely?	Estes contends timely under rule 1.1004/1.1007.	Progressive asserts untimely; its new-trial motion tolling not applicable.	Untimely; district court erred by considering it.
When should interest on the judgment begin—date of underlying tort suit or date of Progressive action?	Interest should start from underlying tort action.	Interest should start from filing of Estes’s action against Progressive.	Interest must run from the date Estes filed suit against the underlying tortfeasors; remanded to reflect that.

Klooster v. N. Iowa State Bank, 404 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 1987) (nonreviewable status of summary-judgment denial after trial)
In re Marriage of Johnson, 781 N.W.2d 553 (Iowa 2010) (review of denial of summary judgment after trial occurs on record)
Lindsay v. Cottingham & Butler Ins. Servs., Inc., 763 N.W.2d 568 (Iowa 2009) (guidepost on reconsideration post-trial motions)
Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2004) (preservation of error for issues raised in summary-judgment context)
In re F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2005) (need for sufficient record to review error)
Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 696 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2005) (context on posttrial motions and timing)
Cownie v. Kopf, 199 Iowa 737 (1925) (strict enforcement of posttrial-motion deadlines)
Julian v. City of Cedar Rapids, 271 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 1978) (amendment not allowed after time expired)
Mitchell v. Heaton, 227 Iowa 1071 (1940) (historical basis for posttrial timing rules)
Sowden & Co. v. Craig, 20 Iowa 477 (1866) (foundational timing principle for posttrial motions)
City of Sioux City v. Freese, 611 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa 2000) (procedural correction on posttrial matters)
Kapadia v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 418 N.W.2d 848 (Iowa 1988) (prejudice under consent-to-settlement and subrogation)