Legal Opinion · Dissent

Amish Connection, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 20, 2015No. 13–0124Published

1DissentHecht, Justice

I respectfully dissent. While I agree with my colleagues in the majority that the policy exclusion for losses “caused by rain” is an important aspect of a proper analysis of this case, I disagree that our disposition turns on the perceived distinction between rain and rainwater.

It is important to understand precisely the loss for which Amish Connection seeks coverage. Amish Connection does not claim coverage for the cost of repairing or replacing the failed drain pipe. Cf. Berry v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 387, 388 (9th Cir.1996) (noting the damage for which coverage was sought was…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Lawver v. BolingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Villella v. Public Employees Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Safeco Insurance Co. Of America v. William GuytonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
  5. State v. RutledgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1999

38 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