An insurеd appeals from a judgment entered by the district court following a joint motion for adjudication of law points. The district court interpreted Iowa Code section 516A.2 '(1997) to prohibit stacking of uninsured motorist coverage under two insurance policies which did not contain antistacking provisions. We conclude the district court properly determined Iowa Code section 516A.2 did not permit stacking of insurance coverage in this case.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Scott Mortensen was riding his bicycle when he was struck by a vehicle operated by an uninsured driver. Mortensen, however, ownеd two insurance policies, containing uninsured motorist coverage. One policy, issued by Milwaukee Guardian Insurance, insured his automobiles, while, another policy from Heritage Mutual Insurance Company insured his motorcycle.
The Milwaukee policy limited uninsured coverage to $100,000 for each insured person. The Heritage policy limited coverage to $20,-000 for each insured person. Mortensen requested the full amount of the coverage from each insurance company. The insurers agreed Mortensen’s damages exceeded $120,-000, but claimed section 516A.2 prevented stacking of coverage in the absence of a specific, provision in the policy permitting stacking. Although they acknowledged their policies did riot contain antistacking provisions, they claimed the policies also did not provide for stacking. 1 Accordingly, they claimed Mortensen was only entitled to receive a total of $100,000. The insurance companies paid Mortensen $100,000.
Mortensen argued section 516A.2 should be interpreted to permit stacking unless the policies contain antistacking provisions. The parties submitted the issue to the district court by a joint motion for adjudiсation of law points.
The district court determined Mortensen was not entitled to collect the additional $20,-000 of coverage. I't held section 516A.2 prohibited stacking of uninsured and underin- *38 sured motorist coverage unless stacking was specifically permitted under the terms of the policy.
On appeal Mortensen claims he was entitled to the combined uninsured benefits from both policies. He contends Iowa Code section 516A.2 should be interpreted to permit the stacking of uninsured insurance benefits when the policy does not otherwise prohibit stacking.
II. Standard of Review.
An adjudication of law points is confined to a determination of legal matters on uncontroverted pleadings. Iowa R. Civ. P. 105. Accordingly, our standard of review is for the correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App. P. 4;
State v. Olsen,
III. Stacking of Insurance Coverage.
Stacking is a term which refers to the availability of more than one insurance policy, or one policy with multiple vehicles, providing reimbursement of the losses of the insured.
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ries,
Our law governing stacking of insurance coverage is found in Iowa Code section 516A.2.
2
This section was amended by our legislature in 1991 to establish our current law on stacking.
See
1991 Iowa Acts ch. 213, § 30. It first declares antistacking provisions contаined in a motor vehicle insurance policy are enforceable. Iowa Code § 516A.2(1). This declaration specifically abrogated our decision in
Hernandez v. Farmers Insurance Co.,
Secondly, the section establishes that the insured and insurer may contract to include stacking of uninsured and underin-sured coverage in a policy. Iowa Code § 516A.2(2). Thus, even though antistacking provisions may be included in an insurance policy, the parties may contract for provisions that provide for stacking, and, presumably, pay an additional premium for the coverage.
Finally, Iowa Code section 516A.2(3) provides if more than one policy is purchased containing uninsured or underinsured motorist coverаge, an insured injured by an uninsured or underinsured motorist is entitled to recover up to an amount equal to the highest limit for such coverage “under any one" of the policies. Id. § 516A.2(3) (emphasis added). It also provides the amount shall be paid by the insurers according to any priority of coverage provisions in the policies. Id.
This final provision primarily impacts the issue presented on appeal in this case. Mor-tensen argues section 516A.2(3) merely emphasizes insurers may place antistaeking provisions in the policies. Heritage and Milwaukee argue this interpretation would essentially rendеr subsections one and three duplicative. They claim section 516A.2(3) exists to provide direction under the circumstances presented in this case.
IV. Iowa Code Section 516A.2.
In construing statutes, we give effect to the legislature’s intention.
Mewes v. State Farm, Auto Ins. Co.,
In order to give effect to the entirety оf section 516A.2, we conclude the rule provided in subsection three applies in the absence of stacking language in the contract. Thus, when the contract is silent regarding the stacking of uninsured benefits, the insured is entitled to recover up to the highest policy limit, with no stacking of coverage. This interpretation gives meaning to the rest of the statute, particularly the amendment abrogating
Hernandez.
On the other hand, Mortensen’s interpretation would render subsections one and three duplicative, which we avoid in our statutory construction. This interpretation is also cоnsistent with the concept that section 516A.2 is read into the contract.
Ries,
V. “Other Insurance” Clauses.
Mortensen nevertheless argues the insurance policies provide for stacking of insurance benefits. He claims the “other insurance” clauses contained in the policy permit stacking. Thus, we must further examine the provisiоns of the policies to determine if stacking was provided as contemplated by section 516A.2(2).
Interpretation and construction of an insurance contract are technically distinct exercises.
LeMars Mut. Ins. Co. v. Joffer,
The controlling consideration in interpreting insurance policies is the intent of the parties.
Ioiva Comprehensive Petroleum
*40
Underground Storage Tank Fund Bd. v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co.,
Where an insured has attempted to recover uninsured motorist coverage under more than one policy issued to the insured by different insurance companies, courts may consider the effect of “othеr insurance” clauses in the policies.
See
Janet Boeth Jones, Annotation,
Combining or “Stacking” Uninsured Motorist Coverages Provided in Policies Issued by Different Insurers to the Same Insured,
The Milwaukee and Heritage policies contain similar other insurance clauses. The Milwaukee other insurance clause states:
If there is other applicable uninsured motorist insurance on a loss covered by this Part, we will pay our proportiоnate share as our limit of liability bears to the total of all applicable limits. Any insurance afforded under this Part for a vehicle you do not own is excess over any other applicable uninsured motorist insurance.
The Heritage other insurance provision provides: ’
If there is other similar insurance on a loss covered by either Coverage C [uninsured motorist] or Coverage D [underinsured motorist], we will pay our proportionate share as our limits of liability bear to the total limits of all applicable similar insur-anee. But, insurance afforded under Coverage C and Coverage D for a vehicle you do not own is excess over any other applicable similar insurance.
Mortensen claims the “total” of all applicable insurance limits of liability in the other insurance clauses means he is entitled to collect $120,000 under the insurance policies. The other insurance clauses in this case, however, address how much each company must contribute to an insured’s loss when other insurance coverage for the same loss exists. They do not entitle an insured to stack policies. In both policies the companies agreed to pay their “proрortionate share” as the limit bears to “the total of all applicable limits.” The application of these clauses is consistent with Iowa Code section 516A.2(3) which provides the amount paid by the insurers shall be governed by the priority of coverage provisions in the pоlicy.
In this case, the total of all applicable limits is $120,000. Because stacking is not permitted, however, the total becomes relevant to determine the insurance companies’ proportionate share of the liability (ie. Milwaukee must pay 83.3% (100,000/120,000) and Heritage must pay 16.7% (20,000/120,000)). The clauses do not permit stacking. Accordingly, we affirm the district court decision.
VI. Conclusion.
We conclude Iowa Code section 516A.2 prohibits stacking of uninsured motorist coverage unless specifically provided in the insurance policy. We affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. The Milwaukee limits of liability clause does address
intrapolicy
stacking.
See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
v.
Ries,
We will pay no more than these máximums regardless of the number of vehicles described or premiums shown in the Declarations, insured persons, claims, claimants, policies, or vehicles involved in the accident. It is the intent of this paragraph not to allow stacking of the limit of liability under this coverage.
The issue of intrapolicy stacking was riot addressed in this case.
. Section 516A.2 provides:
1. Except with respect to a policy containing both underinsured motor vehicle coverage and uninsured or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage, nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as requiring forms of coverage provided pursuant hereto, whether alone or in combination with similar coverage afforded under other automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policies, to afford limits in exсess of those that would be afforded had the insured thereunder been involved in an accident with a motorist who was insured under a policy of liability insurance with the minimum limits for bodily injury or death prescribed in subsection 10 of section 321A.1. Such forms of coverage may include terms, exclusions, limitations, conditions, and offsets which are designed to avoid duplication of insurance or other benefits.
To the extent that Hernandez v. Farmers Insurance Company,460 N.W.2d 842 (Iowa 1990), provided for interpolicy stacking of uninsured or underinsured coverages in contravention of specific contract or policy language, the general assembly dеclares such decision abrogated and declares that the enforcement of the antistacking provisions contained in a motor vehicle insurance policy does not frustrate the protection given to an insured under section 516A.1.
2. Pursuant to chapter 17A, the commissioner of insurance shall, by January 1, 1992, adopt rules to assure the availability, within the state, of motor vehicle insurance policies, riders, endorsements, or other similar forms of coverage, the terms of which shall provide for the stacking of uninsured and underinsured coverages with any similar сoverage which may be available to an insured.
3. It is the intent of the general assembly that when more than one motor vehicle insurance policy is purchased by or on behalf of an injured insured and which provides uninsured, underinsured, or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage to an insured injured in an accident, the injured insured is entitled to recover up to an amount equal to the highest single limit for uninsured, underinsured, or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage under any one of the above described motor vehicle insurance policies insuring the injured person which amount shall be paid by the insurers according to any priority of coverage provisions contained in the policies insuring the injured person.
Iowa Code § 516A.2 (1997).
. Although technically inaccurate and potentially misleading, some courts use other insurance clauses to find amounts under one coverage should be offset against the limits of second coverage, and conclude stacking is not permitted. See 12 Couch on Insurance § 169:9, at 169-23 (3d ed.1998).