888 N.W.2d 52
Iowa2016Background
- Defendant Robert Dubois pleaded guilty to third-degree theft after participating in his son's removal of items from his ex-wife Lisa’s home; district court sentenced him to probation and ordered restitution.
- Lisa reported multiple stolen items (stereo receiver, speakers, jewelry, savings bonds); she had homeowner’s insurance with a $1,000 deductible but had not filed a claim.
- The district court originally ordered $2,950 in restitution, later adjusted to $2,001 after a hearing where insurance coverage was discussed.
- Dubois appealed the restitution order, arguing restitution should be limited to amounts not covered by insurance (i.e., the deductible or uninsured portion).
- The central statutory text: Iowa Code § 910.1(3) defines ‘‘pecuniary damages’’ as "all damages to the extent not paid by an insurer, which a victim could recover against the offender in a civil action arising out of the same facts or event."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution must be reduced to the amount not covered by insurance (e.g., deductible) | State: restitution may be ordered for all damages not actually paid by an insurer; victim need not file an insurance claim before seeking restitution | Dubois: ‘‘not paid by an insurer’’ should be read to mean amounts not covered by the policy (i.e., insurer would not pay), so restitution should be limited to uninsured portion | Court held that "not paid by an insurer" means amounts not actually paid; victim may obtain full restitution now and insurer payments later can lead to modification under § 910.7 |
| Whether victim has an affirmative duty to pursue insurance before restitution | State: no affirmative duty to file a claim; restitution may be ordered before any insurance recovery | Dubois: victim should pursue insurance to avoid double recovery | Court: no statutory duty to pursue insurance; double recovery is addressed by post-order modification if insurer later pays |
| Workability of statutory interpretation | State: literal meaning (actually paid) is straightforward and administrable | Dubois: interpreting by coverage would cause fewer windfalls | Court: interpret "to the extent not paid" as actually paid avoids contested coverage litigation and is workable |
| Remedy if insurer later pays the victim | State: offender can seek adjustment under Iowa Code § 910.7 | Dubois: current restitution should preempt potential insurer payment | Court: offender may petition to modify restitution if future insurer payments create double recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenkins, 788 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2010) (standard of review for restitution orders)
- State v. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 2013) (restitution is statutory)
- People v. Nystrom, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (victim not required to seek insurance before restitution; insurer coverage is fortuitous)
- State v. Klawonn, 688 N.W.2d 271 (Iowa 2004) (restitution reduction when insurer paid estate after order)
- State v. Driscoll, 839 N.W.2d 188 (Iowa 2013) (adjusting restitution when settlement received prior to order)
- Teggatz v. Ringleb, 610 N.W.2d 527 (Iowa 2000) (court will not rewrite clear statutory language)
- State v. Ihde, 532 N.W.2d 827 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole)