Legal Opinion
Vance v. Pekin Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided June 20, 1990No. 89-1633PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LAVORATO, Justice.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa has certified two questions to us. First, may an innocent coinsured spouse recover under a fire insurance policy when the other coinsured spouse has been convicted of arson? Second, if the innocent coinsured spouse can recover, what proportion of the casualty loss may such coinsured recover?
Applying a contract analysis to the policy here, we answer the first question no. So we need not answer the second question.
The relevant facts are these. Susan Vance, the plaintiff, and Donald Vance, her husband, are…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hedtcke v. Sentry InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. VoeltzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1988
- American Economy Insurance v. LiggettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
- Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. WarrenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1979
- Pawtucket Mutual Insurance v. LebrechtSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1963
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2006
- Michelle Postell v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2012
- Watson v. United Services Automobile Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. MurphyTexas Supreme Court · 1999
- Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.