*1 VI. The trial court had second in- Considering in the case.” evidence innocence, presumption concerning give rea- its failure thoughts on to structions evidence, doubt, weight of the and it nor sonable of innocence instruction presumption together, find that the witnesses we expert already indicated mally We have used. instructed the manner correctly on jury was the use of Uniform recommend we psychologists’ testi- evaluate the in which to Temple 104. Cf. State v. Instruction No. prove burden to mony and on State’s ton, (Iowa 1977). 380, 383-84 beyond reasonable guilty a defendant chooses to use its own a trial court Whether is not court bound doubt. A trial instruction, in language or a uniform instructions, wording and in model or fоrm adequately legal cover the must struction properly may instruction requested involved, particu raised principles as raised otherwise points if the denied Seehan, case. See State v. lar facts of Harrington, v. substantially covered. State (Iowa 1977). If the N.W.2d (Iowa 1979). We do N.W.2d as a whole ade instructions when viewed requested instruction would not believe the jury on the law involved quately charge the guidance for the provided any better have here, case, they we believe as given. instruction jury than the be disturbed. should not verdict trial court was concerned V. The VII. in this case labored The trial court together the instructions when considered concerning accuracy over thе issues confusing, jury and given were jury to the be- the instructions submitted clearly been more instructed should have determining new trial should be fore that a evidence” “reasonable “weight of seeking in granted. diligence The court’s however, noted, already we As doubt.” preserve rights is commenda- defendant’s whole the instructions as a have reviewed correctly court instruct- concise, ble. Since the trial clear, them to be and find however, sus- jury, only ed the it erred in presumption We deem the uniform proper. given much less taining instruction motion for a new trial. innocence defendant’s in- proposed confusing than defendant’s entry is remanded for Accordingly, the case giv- one. The instruction struction number judgment and sentence. en on the nature instructed AND REMANDED. REVERSED innocence, it presumption of by “evidence establish- only overcome [that] beyond reasona- guilt es the defendant’s defined Reasonable doubt was
ble doubt.” separate
in uniform instruction. language italicized defend FARM MUTUAL BUREAU INSURANCE instruction is taken proposed ant’s COMPANY, Appellant, Ostrander, 435, 458-59 State v. 18 Iowa in discuss language doubt It was ing reasonable standard. SANDBULTE, Wendell I. Kenneth Sand instruction part of the reasonable doubt bulte, Lugt, Vander Donna Conserva case, and it was not discussed at issue in the Ray tor of Kenneth of the Estate Van of inno conjunction presumption with a Lugt, Incompetent, and der Donna Van presumption cence instruction. Since Individually, Appellees. Lugt, der state, evidence innocence is not No. 64501. Linhoff, 632, 636-37, 97 N.W. Iowa confusing believe (1903), we Supreme Court Iowa. presumption of innocence in a include Feb. 1981. instructing jury on language instruction 10, 1981. necessary pre Rehearing April Denied of evidence quantum doubt, especially when clude a reasonable has been devoted instruction separate standard. reasonable doubt
explaining *3 Shea, Smith, Grigg & Grigg of
H. R. Primghar, appellant. for M. Hellige and Kraai Michael R. Gerald Marks, Shull, City, & for Marshall Sioux appellee, Lugt. Vander Donna Bastemeyer Klay, Loren J. Veldhuizen Veldhuizen, P.C., Orange City, appel- & lees, I. and Kenneth Wendell Sandbulte Sandbulte.
LARSON, Justice. appellant, Mutual Farm Bureau In- ruling in Company, sought dis- surance court, through declaratory judgment trict under proceedings, that it was not liable damages arising liability policy farm out involving a pickup of a collision owned insured, Farm Bu- its Kenneth Sandbulte. son, Wendell, joined reau and his Sandbulte defendants, Ray as well as Van- Kenneth Lugt Lugt, plain- der and Donna Vander separate against tiffs in a suit filed damages arising Sandbultes for out Following jury, judg- collision. trial to a ment entered favor of the defend- as to Farm Bureau’s liabili- ants Sandbulte policy; judg- it ty under the also entered $300,000, against ment Farm Bureau for judgment previ- a consent the amount of agreed ously the Sandbultes and the We was no Lugts. Vander conclude there policy coverage for this occurrence and therefore reverse trial court. facts underlying substantially 22, 1976, contrоversy. April On without sepa- farmed 760 acres in four Sandbulte size, 120 to 280 rate tracts of acres spread approximately across nine miles dence described in the Declara- County. son, Sioux On that date his Wen- tions of .... dell, pickup drove a approximately 8½ miles argues (1) the site of the the homeplace, the northernmost accident was on “way immediately adjoin- tract, to the southernmost tract and beg,an ing” its premises, entitling thus him to plow. tractor, problems He had with the express policy coverage; if not expressly field, left in the and headed for the covered, he prevail, is still entitled be- homeplace pickup get in the another cause this policy language subject tractor. He yield failed to the right-of-way and, interpretations different under our at an intersection approximately halfway rule, interpreted must be home, pickup and the was struck by a mo- insured; manner most favorable to the torcycle operated by Lugt, Kenneth Vander Farm Bureau impliedly warranted to him causing injuries serious to him. that he had coverage type for this of occur- Bureau, Farm which *4 pickup, insured the (3) rence under his Squire policy; cover- tendered the maximum under that age should be principle accorded under the policy to Lugt. Vander It also was the expectations” of “reasonable and insurer under a liability policy, farm called event, this pickup was not a “motor vehicle” IV, Squire owned by Kenneth Sandbulte as that term is policy. used in the Farm $300,000 providing and a maximum of Bureau asserts interpretation the bodily injury. Squire IV excludes cov- “ways adjoining” language and “motor ve- erage for motor vehicles “while legal hicle” definition in the were the premises insured or the ways immedi- not binding upon ap- this court on issues ately adjoining” and Farm Bureau contends And, peal. it argues, there was insufficient this incident fell outside the policy cover- evidence for submission of Sandbulte’s im- age. In its statement of plied warranty expectation and reasonable the provides: jury. theories COVERAGE M ... Company “special This I. T'he trial agrees pay all reasоna- court submitted ver- expenses ble medical .. . person jury for each dict” foirms under which was asked bodily who sustains injury .... respond “ways immediately whether ad- joining” as used in the policy would to 2. if bodily injury ordinary person .. . the lo- “[t]he [include] (a) arises out of a condition cation of the automobile accident in this insured ways or the imme- jury response case.” The indicated in diately adjoining .... o;f “way the area this accident was on a (Emphasis added.) emphasized lan- adjoining” premises. Farm Bu- insured guage policy’s is also used in the statement argues: reau of this interpretation of exclusions: court, language was for the it erred in tihat This policy apply: does not issue, allowing jury to decide t.he 1. Undеr Coverages L and M: proper interpretation phrase that a a. to bodily injury property dam- policy. excludes under the Sand- age arising ownership, out of the prop- bulte counters that it was a fact issue maintenance, use, operation, loading erly submissiMe to the and that unloading of: properly issue it. by decided (2) any motor operat- vehicle owned or contract, “Construction” by ed ... any insured while away from effect, process determining legal its is insured or the ways imme- always a matter of law to be resolved diately adjoining .... “Interpretation”, process the court. premises” “Insured is defined as used, determining meaning of words premises (including grounds for’ the court decide as a also a matter private approaches thereto) law, depends upon unless it ex- the resi- matter of
108
108,
105,
Co.,
2
Casualty
141 Neb.
Maryland
reasona
among
evidence or a choice
trinsic
Sandbulte,
593,
(1942).
argu-
it. Con
595
inferences to be drawn from
N.W.2d
ble
to two
susceptible
Fund
ing
phrase
Construction Co. v. Fireman’s
nie’s
Co.,
(Iowa
therefore,
and,
210
the one fa-
227 N.W.2d
interpretations
Insurance
Fertilizer,
Allied Mutu
1975);
accepted,
& J
Inc. v.
relies
C
to him must
vorable
169, 172
Co.,
(Iowa
See,
227 N.W.2d
g.,
al Insurance
e.
rule.
well-established
upon a
Hines,
1975);
General
Co.
Insurance Co.
Automobile
Farm
738, 745,
156 N.W.2d
1977);
Iowa
(Iowa
Malcolm,
N.W.2d
Wolverine Insur-
Bearings Co. v.
Central
(Iowa 1970).
ance
bearing on
No
evidence
extrinsic
parties disa-
Hоwever,
mere fact that
“ways im
interpretation
phrase
meaning
phrase does
of a
gree on the
mediately adjoining” was submitted
purposes
ambiguity
establish
insured,
was not even
trial court. The
who
Bohn,
Indemnity
v.Co.
Travelers
rule. See
until after the.
language
aware of the
(Mo.1970) (parties’ con-
460 S.W.2d
accident,
phrase
argued only that
“ways immedi-
flicting interpretations of
susceptible
meanings and that he
to two
ambigui-
adjoining” does not establish
ately
the one most favorable n entitled to
Is the
objective one:
ty). The test
is an
him;
only that
argued
the insurer
t'he
interpre-
to two
language fairly susceptible
Because
phrase was clear on its face.
no
Bearings
v. Wolverine
Co.
submitted,
tatiоns? Central
the issue
extrmsic evidence was
445. We con-
179 N.W.2d at
Insurance
resolved
the court as a
should have been
*5
not.
clude it is
law,
its
upon
matter of
based
examination
Id. Rather than follow
of the words used.
adjoining”
immediately
phrase “ways
however,
the court
procedure,
sub
liability
in
and
frequently
is found
jury.
issue to the
While this
mitted the
7A
policies.
insurance
See
“homeowners”
comport
pre
with that
procedure did not
and Practice
Appleman, Insurance Law
J.
interpretation
scribed
our cases for
Couch,
4500.02,
(1979);
Cyclope
at 191
G.
§
language in the absence
extrin
contract
44:303, at 718-19
Law
dia of Insurance
§
evidence,
whe
sic
the real issue is
ther the
unambiguous.
to be
It is considered
correctly.
phrase
interpreted
Because
191;
4500.02,
11
supra
at
Appleman,
See
§
law,
course., the trial
this was an issue of
44:303,
Couch,
Although
supra
at 718.
interpretation
ng
ap
is not bindi
on
court’s
decided the
apparently
our court has
never
Co. v. Firemans
peal, Connie’s Construction
issue,
addressing
agree:
those cases
209,
Co.,
Fund
227 N.W.2d at
Insurance
adjoining”
phrase “ways immediately
we address
issue anew.
clear,
which the
“way” upon
and that
or abut the in
incident occurs must touch
policy does not
The insurance
point
at the
of the occur
premises
The words
sured
phrase
question.
define the
in
See,
g.,
v. Great
used, however,
rence.
e.
United States
commonly understood.
are
17,
Co.,
F.2d
19
Indemnity
214
“touching
as
or American
“Adjoining”
is defined
1954) (“words ‘immediately adjoin
(9th
or
some line:
Cir.
bounding
point
at. some
en
”
a definite
ing’
unequivocal
and have
space
Webster’s Third New
near in
....
2,7
‘Adjoining’ used in
meaning.
certain
Dictionary
(unabridged
International
touching
ordinary
means
its usual and
sense
1961);
“immediately”,
is defined as
with,
distin
contiguous,
in contact
in
connection
or
intermediary:
“without
direct
”
adjacent.”);
lying
or
guished from
near
relation
Id. at 1129. The combi
....
Indemnity
Long v. London & Lancashire
“immediately” with
nation of the words
629-30;
Co.,
Jones v. Globe
119 F.2d
“adjoining;”
“adjacent” has been held to
Co.,
242,
(E.D.
F.Supp.
305
245
contiguity,
Indemnity
synonymous
with actual
Bohn,
Cal.1969);
Indemnity Co. v.
intervening
Long
Travelers
space. See
without
645-48;
Maryland
Co.,
Pickens v.
Indemnity
119 460
v. London
Lancashire
S.W.2d
&
Co.,
109
Muse,
(1942);
N.J.Super.
Lendway
595
83
or to hold
premises”
“insured
in such cases
256, 260-61,
(1964);
199 A.2d
becomes coincident with scope
employ-
ment, the
Casualty
practical
Carraco Oil Co. v. Mid-Continent
effect would be to make
Co.,
(Okl.1971);
such a
Finley,
policy virtually open-ended
HO phrase “ways adjoin- Lugt immediately of site the Sandbulte-Vander county K42. Two of with insured ing”, requiring contiguity on road the accident road, that one tracts abutted under Sandbulte’s did not allow for premises, north the accident site case, three-fourths mile of facts and the trial court the of this in a the other four miles south. So and concluding it in did. erred sense, on which the “way” the road broad Bu adjoin did the insured II. contend Farm accident occurred Sandbultes point im- premises, although not of the warranted to him that impliedly reau compensation pact. Does this fact mandate Squire would cover situation. policy’s express complies it with the because warranty Following analogy implied of and, so, provisions would such cov- if where tangible goods, plurality the sale in not, it erage end? if does make Or opinion adopted of this court doctrine immediately adjoining” language at “ways of an implied warranty the sale insurance circumstances, ambiguous under these least Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied C & J entitling the insured to benefit thus N.W.2d Mutual Insurance argues that it does. the doubt? Sandbulte (Iowa 1975) (three justices joining). We Indemnity Co. v. Bohn addressed Travelers here, theory for the expressly adopt that against cov- issues resolved them these and expressed in J Fertilizer the C & reasons erage. Indemnity In Travelers accident inapplicable un opinion, but cоnclude it is occurred on the same street which of this case. der facts located, but feet insured were under the the- recovery The elements for away. The said: court (1) implied warranty that ory The real contention of insureds] [the the particular insurer had reason know way if is that is ... there purpose purchased; which adjoins insured] [the compa- (2) upon that the insured relied argue, Counsel declined to as be- point. judgment furnishing such ny’s skill or irrelevant, question of ing hypothetical (3) resulting coverage; implied that the away two miles of an accident 554.2315, warranty § was breached. See street, or miles on the same or ten (sale goods). The Code 1977 Whether away on the same 100 miles or morе warranty usually arises insist, however, it is highway. They question of fact to be determined from the adjoin, only way which must negotiations. the parties’ circumstances of accident, necessarily place Uniform Commercial Code See U.L.A. into way separated may not thus 2-315, 482-83, Official Comment court distorted parts, trial contends, (sale goods). Farm Bureau policy exclusion when the terms of the however, should not have issue Counsel, obliquely, ar- did so. somewhat jury, been submitted to the because there ambiguity, saying gue also the matter of *7 no in to establish was evidence the record clear, meaning is if the above element, e., first i. the insurer’s reason am- policy provision is least then cov- particular purpose to know the for the biguous that a construction should erage. purpose” A in the sale “particular We adopted to the insured. favorable goods illustrated: ques- spend space no time or shall discussed, we or the for tion authorities “particular A differs from the purpose” provisions ambigu- are not hold ordinary goods for which the are purpose considering provision we ous. In this specific by use envisages used in that it a consider the context and may and should nature buyer peculiar which coverage in whole which ordinary pur- whereas the of his business appear. and its exclusion goods those poses for which are used are envisaged concept of merchantabil- arguments were at 645. Similar S.W.2d customarily uses which are ity go Oil rejected in Carraco Co. Mid-Continent goods question. For ex- P.2d in at 522. made
1H ample, generally shoes are used Squire for the first IV by increasing his purpose walking upon ordinary $300,000 and, learning previous that his ground, may but a seller know a coverage had not included 480 acres farmed particular pair was selected to be for time, by him for some he also had his policy climbing mountains. modified to include all 760 acres. Id. at 488. The in record this case shows no commu- give implied warranty,
To rise to an nication between and the Sandbulte insurer furnishing respond must agent or its as to the 1968 policy, which need; particular furnishing general a it for first contained the question. exclusion in purposes enough. is not Jacobson v. Benson There was a limited discussion between Motors, Inc., (Iowa Sandbulte and the Farm agent Bureau in 1974); Anderson, 1 R. Uniform Commercial September, when upgraded Sandbulte 2-315:14, (1970) (“a particular Code at 662 § Squire IV policy by increasing the limits purpose ... goods is a use to which the are adding the 480 acres. Kenneth Sand- ordinarily put”); 77 C.J.S. Sales § testimony bulte’s about that conversation (1952) (“ at 1178 ‘particular purpose’ means was the only evidence toas what the insur- usage than, other or different in kind or er “had particu- reason to know” about his from, extent the ordinary uses the article purpose lar in acquiring coverage. meet; was special purpose made to that, Sandbulte testified when his first distinguished ordinary from the use of the Squire policy upgraded, was “I making question”); Annot., article in generally see my sure that operation whole farm would (1978). A.L.R.3d $300,000 coverage” company’s and the agent told Squire policy me that “the . ..
Reverting the general law of give would me better total sales, for Fertilizer, as we did in C & J we note everything my farming that, operation.” He while it longer necessary is no for a specific representation conceded that no buyer to show he advised the seller of the had been by agent made that motor particular purpose purchasing goods, he from the insured must nevertheless show that the sеller provided by Squire “had IV. purpose. reason to know” of that Ja Motors, cobson v. Benson 216 N.W.2d at note, passing, repre that the 404; We compare 554.16(1), The Code 1962 § sentations claimed to have been by made Act; (Uniform buyer must “expressly Sales agent were made after the last of the by implication .. . known to the [make] liability policies three purchased. had been seller particular purpose for which the rule is that warranty of fitness goods 554.2315, required”) are with § particular purpose upon for a rests what (U.C.C.; Code 1977 seller must have “rea the seller has reason to know the time of any particular purpose son to know sale, not thereafter. Jacobson v. Ben goods ”). which the required.... Motors, Inc., 405; 216 N.W.2d at son bought first Farm Bu Am.Jur.2d Sales at 638-39 liability policy, reau called a Farm Protec event, In neither tor, inquiry Sandbulte’s in August, 1968. This form was discon agent’s nor the reply were shown to be by tinued the company, and in when referable, inference, even renewal, particular to a up the old it was insurance, e., need to be met automatically replaced by i. Squire poli *8 off-premises coverage cy. replacement The of motor vehicles. policy was mailed representation company’s agent’s from the home that the insured directly office to original Squire provided Sandbulte. The would be “better total provid $100,000 acres, everything farming ed of for in ... opera- 280 for [his] contained an anytime identical exclusion for tion” and which would be available occur rences off or adjoining ways. “pertained my opera- an occurrence to farm September, In particular Sandbulte modified the not amount to a pur- tion” does 112 appeal bulte claims on there was sufficient war- implied law of
pose
by
envisioned
findings, while Farm
support
its
evidence
ranty.
representation
this generalized
If
have
should not
Bureau claims
issue
warran-
implied
to be basis for
were held
a
all,
a lack
at
because of
there
been submitted
purpose,
for
ty
particular
a
fitness
exposure
supporting
evidence.
limits of
virtually
no
would
liability policy wоuld be
The farm
liability.
of the reasonable
The rationale
coverage to be filled
framework of
merely a
that,
in a contract
expectation doctrine is
as
occurrences arose.
adhesion,
form
policy,
as an insurance
pur-
particular
substance,
a
purchases signal
Some
over
must not be exalted
pur-
items
by the nature
the in
pose just
expectations of
reasonable
See,
Dailey
Holiday Dis-
g.,
though
e.
chased.
not be frustrated “even
may
sured
871-72,
Corp.,
151
tributing
policy provisions
260 Iowa
study of the
painstaking
purpose
(1967) (only
486
one
negated
expectations.”
N.W.2d
those
would have
pur-
a
dry cleaning equipment,
buying
Insurance
Farm Mutual
Rodman v. State
Keеton,
buyers”);
pose
(quoting
“as obvious to
N.W.2d at 906
[sellers]
(“in
in-
at 639
some
supra,
6.3(a),
at 351
Am.Jur.2d
Text §
Insurance Law —Basic
reason to
Fertilizer, Inc.,
. the
will have
stances ..
seller
C J
(1971)); see also &
nature of
purpose merely
expecta
know the
176-77. Reasonable
N.W.2d at
itself”).
JC & Fertil-
the sales transaction
doc
of the
giving
application
rise
tions
single-purpose policy
izer
illustrates
a
by proof of the
may
trine
be established
nature,
par-
which,
signals a
very
its
from
underlying negotiations or inferred
burglary
towas
be a
purpose:
ticular
It
(Second)
Restatement
the circumstances.
“burglary,”
definition of
policy;
f).
(comment
of Contracts
§
however,
its
of the
emasculated
if the exclusion
apply
will
herе
The doctrine
purchased. The
very risk for which it
(2)
(1) is
or
eviscerates
oppressive,
bizarre
liability policy,
purchase of
to,
agreed
eliminates
explicitly
terms
particu-
that kind of
signal
though, does
purpose of
transaction.
the dominant
customarily
purpose.
policies
larized
Such
by C &
well illustrated
Id. The doctrine is
vehicle
provide off-premises motor
do not
burglary
terms of a
J Fertilizer: Under the
separately
risks are
coverage, because such
for loss
agreed
pay
policy the insurer
“[t]o
policies. 7A
under
insured
motor
watchman,
by burglary
by robbery
191;
4500.02,
Couch,
supra
Appleman,
§
business
open
while the
”
supra
32.
44:453 at
poli
In the definition section of
....
however,
defined in such
сy,
burglary of one of
there
no evidence
Because
occurrence which
way
as to exclude
warranty
implied
theo-
requisites of the
on the
by marks left
was not evidenced
pur-
particular
ry,
to know
reason
premises. This definition
exterior of the
to submit the
pose,
it was error
we conclude
concept
layman’s
was not consistent with
jury.
issue to
crime,
legal interpreta
nor with its
even if
The insured contends
III.
effect,
the definition overrode
tion.
In
coverage under the
express
he
did not
purchasing
purpose for
dominant
terms,
be enti-
he
nevertheless
should
coverage spe
effect eviscerated
did,
this was
if he
because
tled to recover as
for, protecting against
bargained
cifically
recog-
We have
expectation.
his reasonable
176-77.
227 N.W.2d at
burglary.
expectation principle
reasonable
nized the
case,
Fertilizer,
cases,
present
In the
including C J
&
similar
actually
he was
misled
not contend
and Rodman
does
176-77
N.W.2d
because he had not
policy language,
Mutual Automobile Insurance
Farm
however,
an ordi
argues,
(Iowa 1973).
He
read it.
N.W.2d
cov
reasonably expect
would
nary layman
here
the issue
trial court
submitted
If an ordi
erage
the circumstances.
explained the
under
instructions which
under
misunderstand the
would not
expectations.
nary layman
Sand-
concept of reasonable
*9
occurrence,
made,
to this
under a
policy’s
policy with the same exclu
circumstances
there were no
attributable to
sionary language
case,
as the present
insurer which would foster coverage
motor vehicle coverage away from the in
expectations,
expectation
the reasonable
sured
was a
expecta
reasonable
inapplicable.
doctrine is
Rodman
See
v.
tion of the insured and that
the insurer
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
should
held responsible
for it. The court
Co.,
deduced 465 P.2d at plain intendment of the exclu- sionary language used in the will at 707. Motor usage greatly ex- pands thus not offend the rule exposure liability, insurance and it is not expec- should “effectuate reasonable expect reasonable to insurance on motor' average tations of the member of the appendage vehicles as an to a lia- public buys who it.” Kievit Loyal Pro- bility policy premium at a much lower than 475, 488, tect. Life Ins. 34 N.J. comparable that for limits in a motor vehi- (1961). A.2d 22 case, policy. present cle In the the annual $300,000 premium for the Muse, Lendway 261, 199 $18.96 N.J.Super. cannot, course, per year. While (1964); accord, Herzog A.2d at 394 v. Na proportion premiums tional be related in direct American Insurance 2 Cal.3d 841, 843, Cal.Rptr. paid, upon 465 P.2d we think that fact bears Herzog, In argument expectations; reasonableness Sandbulte’s *10 expectation See the reasonable doctrine. as a analogous we have held contexts In (Sеcond) at of Contracts ordinary person an could Restatement of law that matter to f). It therefore error coverage (comment under the was expect reasonably not Bearings jury. Co. v. issue to the In Central submit the circumstances. Co., this court held Insurance Wolverine that all IV. contends Sandbultes not liability policy could premises a concerning the exclusion of the discussion cover an accident reasonably expected to be really un of motor vehicles by it broke manufactured in which cable in this case necessary pickup the because usage. We said during is used vehicle as that term was not a motor person would as a reasonable the insurеd mainly used policy. Because it coverage purchased policy understand feed, hay to haul on the farm not covered for the insured was meant machine, fuel, they like a farm it was more with concomitant the “accident” loss if contend, such for and should treated as damage victim occurred from to a sub purposes. The trial court insurance operation or premises and after form of jury to the mitted this issue protection such complete. For sale was The was asked to special jury verdict. purchase to would have the insured ordinary not “the respond as to whether or by the terms offered additional policy term person” would conclude that .. therefore reverse policy.. We the Sandbulte “motor vehicle” included pe- plaintiff’s to dismiss with instructions responded nega in the The pickup. plaintiff’s at cost. tition tive. omitted). (citations In N.W.2d at 449 this defini- Squire provided Automobile Farm Mutual Rodman tion: excluded Insurance ve- vehicle—means a land motor Motor any “or bodily insured injury hicle, designed for trailer or semi-trailer residing in the same insured member (including any ma- public roads travel insured household of insured.” thereto) apparatus or attached chinery merely he continued the had contended include, being except while but does not wife before their coverage purchased by his vehicle, towed or carried on a motor expect marriage, he no reason had following: any of and most other policy, this exclusion not such exclusions in
companies did
have
policies.
trailer,
We said:
tractor,
their
im-
b.
farm
farm
farm
plement
machinery
or farm
while
not believe an
present
case we do
In
with
used in connection
reasonably
equipment
be-
ordinary insured would
premises;
farm
bodily injury liability
the policy’s
lieve
reading the
coverage applied to him after
any
equipment
c.
other mobile farm
language]
....
Policies
[exclusionary
registration
for motor vehicle
licensed
uniformly
containing this exclusion
exclusively
on an insured
with their
in accordance
been enforced
premises except
for оccasional
travel
terms.
anoth-
one insured farm
premises;
er
insured farm
immediately adjacent premis- similar to the insured Connolly provision op- not “bizarre Standard es. This 121. The Sand- pressive”, nor did eviscerate terms S.D. clearly “designed” for pur- pickup the dominant bulte agreed to or eliminate definition, rise use under give highway the transaction so as pose of H5 use it. regardless of the actual made of being
And fact it was driven on *11 at the
highway time of accident attests was, occasionally,
to the fact least
being highway used as a vehicle. It
licensed a motor vehicle and was insured am-
as such. definition was not
biguous and the con- court should have so
cluded as a matter law. judgment must reversed.
REVERSED. concur, UHLENHOPP, judges except
All
LeGRAND, JJ„ SCHULTZ, ALLBEE part
who concur in part. dissent
UHLENHOPP, (concurring Justice
part, dissenting part).
I concur in the result and in all of the
opinion except adoption theory of the
implied warranty, in division II. I dissent part opinion.
LeGRAND, SCHULTZ, ALLBEE and
JJ., join in this dissent. Iowa, Appellee,
STATE of Benjamin LOVE, Appellant.
Willie
No. 63773.
Supreme Court of Iowa. 18, 1981.
Feb.