Legal Opinion · Dissent

Michele M. Pitts v. Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company and Donald Schiffer

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided July 6, 2012No. 11–0117Published

1DissentMansfield, Justice

I respectfully dissent. For the reasons stated herein, I would affirm the well-reasoned decision of the court of appeals.

I. The Majority Incorrectly Eliminates the Previous Legal Requirement that the Plaintiffs Status as Intended Beneficiary of the Asset Had to Appear in the Decedent’s Written Documentation.

The majority’s opinion is an unwarranted expansion, not an application, of existing Iowa law. In Schreiner v. Scoville, we held that an attorney who drafted a will leaving an interest in property to a beneficiary could be liable in negligence for failing to take additional steps to protect…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Thompson v. KaczinskiSupreme Court of Iowa · 2009
  2. Mark Peak v. Ellis Adams and Rachel AdamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 2011
  3. Sandbulte v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1984
  4. Nebraska Innkeepers, Inc. v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1984
  5. State Ex Rel. William Ranni Associates, Inc. v. HartenbachSupreme Court of Missouri · 1987

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API