Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company v. Holmes Murphy & Associates, Inc. ( 2013 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 12–0650
Filed May 17, 2013
FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
vs.
HOLMES MURPHY & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E.
Gamble, Judge.
Plaintiff–insurance company appeals district court’s grant of
summary judgment in a negligence action against an insurance broker.
AFFIRMED.
Jason T. Madden and Thomas M. Boes of Bradshaw, Fowler,
Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, and James A. Pugh of Munro Law
Office, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Matthew J. Dendinger and Lewis K. Loss of Loss, Judge & Ward,
LLP, Washington, DC, and Richard A. Malm of Dickinson, Mackaman,
Tyler & Hagen, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
2
HECHT, Justice.
A husband and wife applied for life insurance policies from Farm
Bureau Life Insurance Company. The applicants later sued Farm
Bureau alleging it negligently failed to notify them of their HIV-positive
status. Farm Bureau settled the negligence claims, sued its insurers for
indemnity, and sued its insurance broker for breach of contract and
negligence in failing to provide timely notice to the insurers. We affirmed
a summary judgment in favor of the insurers on the ground Farm
Bureau had failed to give them timely notice of the applicants’ liability
claims. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., 780 N.W.2d
735 (Iowa 2010).
Thereafter the district court granted summary judgment for the
broker after concluding that even if the insurers had been given timely
notice of the applicants’ tort claims against Farm Bureau, coverage for
those claims would have been precluded under two separate exclusions.
Farm Bureau has again appealed. As we conclude the underwriting
exclusion precluded coverage for the applicants’ claims, we affirm the
district court’s ruling.
I. Factual and Procedural Background.
The events giving rise to the present dispute commenced in
Wyoming in October 1999 when John and Mary Smith1 applied for life
insurance through Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau denied the Smiths’
applications for life insurance after a blood screening revealed they were
both infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). In
November 1999 Farm Bureau sent the Smiths a letter informing them
1As information pertaining to communicable and infectious diseases is generally
confidential, see, e.g., Iowa Code chapters 139A and 141A (2009), we use pseudonyms
in this instance as we did in the earlier appeal. See Farm Bureau, 780 N.W.2d at 737
n.1.
3
their applications were denied “due to the blood profile results” and
requesting authorization to disclose the results to their physician(s). The
Smiths did not respond or grant Farm Bureau the requested
authorization, and they did not discover their HIV-positive status until
July 2001.
The Smiths filed a complaint in June 2002 in Wyoming Federal
District Court alleging Farm Bureau and other parties involved in the
analysis of the blood samples were negligent in:
(1) failing to report the HIV-positive status to the State of
Wyoming; (2) failing, in violation of Wyoming common law, to
report the HIV-positive results to them; and (3) failing to
inform them before their blood was drawn that Farm Bureau
would not tell them if the blood tests were positive for HIV.
Id. at 737. The Smiths sought damages for loss of present and future
income, bodily injury, past and future pain and suffering, mental
anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, total disability, inability to care for
themselves as their diseases progressed, and other general damages.2
The federal district court concluded Farm Bureau owed no legal
duty to inform the Smiths of their HIV-positive status and granted Farm
Bureau’s motion for summary judgment. The Smiths appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which reversed the
summary judgment order. The court held:
[I]f an insurance company, through independent
investigation by it or a third party for purposes of
determining policy eligibility, discovers that an applicant is
infected with HIV, the company has a duty to disclose to the
applicant information sufficient to cause a reasonable
applicant to inquire further.
Pehle v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 397 F.3d 897, 900 (10th Cir. 2005).
2The complaint also alleged that by July 2001 the condition of one of the Smiths
had progressed to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and the condition of
the other had deteriorated to total disability.
4
The Smiths then filed an amended complaint in Wyoming district
court seeking punitive damages and alleging Farm Bureau had breached
the legal duty recognized by the Tenth Circuit. The damages the Smiths
alleged in their amended complaint were similar to those alleged in the
original complaint and included: “loss of past, present, and future
income”; past and future “pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, psychological damage, total disability, inability to care
for themselves as the disease progresse[d], and other general damages.”
In June 2006 Farm Bureau and the Smiths reached a confidential
settlement agreement and the suit was dismissed.
Farm Bureau subsequently sought indemnity, for the amounts
paid in settling the Smiths’ claims, under an Insurance Company
Professional Liability (ICPL) policy issued by Federal Insurance Company
(Federal) and in effect at the time the Smiths filed their lawsuit. Under
Insuring Clause 1 of the ICPL policy Federal was obligated:
To pay on behalf of the Insureds for Loss which the Insureds
shall become legally obligated to pay as a result of any Claim
first made against the Insureds during the Policy Period or, if
elected, the Extended Reporting Period, arising out of any
Wrongful Act committed by the Insureds or any person for
whose acts the Insureds are legally liable during or prior to
the Policy Period while performing Insurance Services
including the alleged failure to perform Insurance Services.
Insuring Clause 2 of the same policy covered Farm Bureau for
wrongful acts committed while performing financial services.
The policy defined “a claim” as:
a. a written demand for monetary damages;
b. a civil proceeding commenced by the service of a
complaint or similar pleading;
c. a criminal proceeding commenced by the return of an
indictment; or
5
d. a formal administrative or regulatory proceeding brought
by or on behalf of policyholders or customers commenced
by the filing of a notice of charges, formal investigative
order, or similar document.
The policy required written notice to Federal of claims “as soon as
practicable, but in no event later than ninety (90) days after the
termination of the policy period.”3
Farm Bureau notified its insurance broker, Holmes Murphy &
Associates, Inc., of the Smiths’ claims on February 11, 2003. Holmes
Murphy did not notify Federal about the claims, however, until more
than two years after the ICPL policy notice period had expired. Farm
Bureau, 780 N.W.2d at 740.
By letter dated April 1, 2005, Federal denied coverage based on
Farm Bureau’s failure to provide timely notice of the Smiths’ claims.
Federal also denied coverage based on the policy’s exclusions for claims
“for bodily injury”4 and claims “based upon, arising from, or in
consequence of the underwriting of insurance” (the “underwriting
exclusion”).5
3The policy period for the policy in effect at the time the Smiths filed their suit
against Farm Bureau ended February 15, 2003.
4The bodily injury exclusion provided:
The Company shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in
connection with any Claim made against the Insureds:
....
g. for bodily injury, mental or emotional distress, sickness, disease, or
death of any person; provided however, this Exclusion shall not apply
to a Claim based solely on the Insured’s failure to provide Insurance
Services.
5The underwriting exclusion provided:
The Company shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in
connection with any Claim made against the Insureds:
....
k. based upon, arising from, or in consequence of the underwriting of
insurance, including any decisions involving the classification,
6
Farm Bureau filed suit against Federal and Holmes Murphy.6 We
affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Federal on the ground Farm
Bureau had failed to timely notify Federal of the Smiths’ claims as
required by the ICPL policy. Id. at 744.
Farm Bureau then filed an amended petition against Holmes
Murphy alleging breach of contract and negligence for failing to provide
Federal with notice of the Smiths’ claims. The parties stipulated that, in
the interest of judicial efficiency, the court would first determine whether
the ICPL policy would have covered Farm Bureau for the Smiths’ claims
had Holmes Murphy given Federal timely notice. Both parties moved for
summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of Holmes Murphy, concluding the bodily injury and underwriting
exclusions in the ICPL policy would have precluded coverage even if
Federal had received timely notice of the Smiths’ claims. Farm Bureau
appeals.
II. Scope of Review.
We review rulings on summary judgment motions for correction of
errors of law. Id. at 739. Summary judgment is only appropriate when a
“moving party has affirmatively established the existence of undisputed
facts entitling that party to a particular result under controlling law.”
Travelers Indem. Co. v. D.J. Franzen, Inc., 792 N.W.2d 242, 245–46 (Iowa
2010) (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). When
no extrinsic evidence is offered on the meaning of language in a policy,
___________________________
selection, or renewal of risks as well as the rates and premiums
charged to insure or reinsure risks . . . .
6Farm Bureau also named Great Northern Insurance Company as a defendant
in the action. Great Northern had issued a policy covering liability arising from Farm
Bureau’s acts or omissions as a financial institution. Farm Bureau’s claim under that
policy was rejected in the earlier appeal, Farm Bureau, 780 N.W.2d at 742–44, and is
not at issue in this appeal.
7
interpretation and construction of an insurance policy are questions of
law for the court. Farm Bureau, 780 N.W.2d at 739.
III. Discussion.
The parties advance diverging interpretations of the bodily injury
and underwriting exclusions found in the ICPL policy. While at least
some, if not all, of the damages the Smiths seek against Farm Bureau
may be characterized as losses in connection with a claim for bodily
injury and would therefore be excluded from coverage under the policy’s
bodily injury exclusion, we need not decide whether that exclusion is
dispositive. Instead, we conclude the underwriting exclusion precludes
coverage for any of the Smiths’ claims.
The controlling consideration in construction of insurance policies
is the intent of the parties. Thomas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 749
N.W.2d 678, 681 (Iowa 2008). We determine intent by what the policy
itself says except in cases of ambiguity. A.Y. McDonald Indus., Inc. v. Ins.
Co. of N. Am., 475 N.W.2d 607, 618 (Iowa 1991). Ambiguity exists when
the language of a policy is susceptible to more than one reasonable
interpretation. First Newton Nat’l Bank v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis., 426
N.W.2d 618, 628 (Iowa 1988). We read the insurance contract in its
entirety, rather than reading clauses in isolation, to determine whether a
policy provision is subject to two equally proper interpretations. Thomas,
749 N.W.2d at 681. We refrain from straining the meaning of the words
and phrases of the policy to avoid imposing liability that was not
intended and coverage that was not purchased. Id. at 682.
When words are left undefined in a policy, we give them their
ordinary meanings—meanings which a reasonable person would give
them. A.Y. McDonald, 475 N.W.2d at 619. We do not typically give them
meanings only specialists or experts would understand. City of Spencer
8
v. Hawkeye Sec. Ins. Co., 216 N.W.2d 406, 408–09 (Iowa 1974). In
searching for the ordinary meanings of undefined terms in insurance
policies we commonly refer to dictionaries. See, e.g., Witcraft v.
Sundstrand Health & Disability Grp. Benefit Plan, 420 N.W.2d 785, 788
(Iowa 1988) (meaning of “illness”); N. Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Holty, 402
N.W.2d 452, 455 (Iowa 1987) (meaning of “apparatus”). If a word is
susceptible to two interpretations, typically we adopt an interpretation
favoring the insured. A.Y. McDonald, 475 N.W.2d at 619. Mere
disagreement, however, as to the meaning of the terms, does not
establish ambiguity. Id. Instead we examine whether the policy
language, viewed objectively, is fairly susceptible to two interpretations.
Id. Ultimately, if there is no ambiguity, the court will not rewrite the
policy for the parties. Thomas, 749 N.W.2d at 682.
In construing the underwriting exclusion at issue here, we
acknowledge the specific words introducing a word or phrase may have
implications for our construction. See, e.g., Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Corrigan, 697 N.W.2d 108, 112 (Iowa 2005). Some liability policies—like
the one issued by Federal to Farm Bureau—exclude from coverage claims
“arising from” an excluded cause. Other policies may more narrowly
exclude coverage of claims “for” an excluded cause. We have said that
while phrases like “arising out of” should be given “a broad,
comprehensive meaning” in a coverage clause, such language may be
read more narrowly in an exclusionary clause. Tacker v. Am. Family Mut.
Ins. Co., 530 N.W.2d 674, 677 (Iowa 1995). In cases giving “arising from”
exclusions their ordinary meaning, “arising from” and “arising out of”
language has been construed to mean “originating from, having its
9
origins in, growing out of, or flowing from.”7 Callas Enters., Inc. v.
Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 193 F.3d 952, 955–56 (8th Cir. 1999)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (applying Minnesota law);
see also Spirtas Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 521 F.3d 833, 835–36 (8th Cir. 2008)
(applying Missouri law, explaining “arising from” in exclusion means
“flowed from” or “had [its] origins in” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pierce, 271 F. App’x 416, 417–18 (5th
Cir. 2008) (applying Mississippi law, explaining “arising out of” in
exclusion means “originating from, having its origin in, growing out of, or
flowing from” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); United
Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Penuche’s, Inc., 128 F.3d 28, 31 (1st Cir. 1997) (applying
New Hampshire law, explaining phrase “arising out of” in exclusion “is a
very broad term meaning originating from or growing out of or flowing
from” but not “so broad as to encompass a ‘tenuous’ connection” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
With these propositions in mind, we examine the language of the
underwriting exclusion and the nature of the Smiths’ claims. Farm
Bureau contends the language of the exclusion renders it inapplicable to
the Smiths’ claims because they were unrelated to the function of
underwriting described in the policy. Noting the language of the
underwriting exclusion is not limited to claims based on Farm Bureau’s
failure to issue life insurance policies to the Smiths or the manner in
which Farm Bureau decided against insuring the Smiths’ lives, Holmes
7We acknowledge a phrase like “arising out of” may be given a narrower scope in
an exclusion when a court finds the exclusion ambiguous and therefore determines the
phrase means “proximately caused by.” See Norwalk Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc. v.
Travelers Ins. Cos., 246 F.3d 1132, 1138 (8th Cir. 2001). As we explain, however, we
find the plain meaning of the underwriting exclusion here unambiguous.
10
Murphy counters that the Smiths’ claims clearly arose from Farm
Bureau’s underwriting activity.
The ICPL policy does not define “underwriting.” The language of
the underwriting exclusion itself is instructive nonetheless, exempting
from coverage claims arising from, or in consequence of “the
underwriting of insurance, including any decisions involving the
classification, selection, or renewal of risks.” As we have noted, we will
not give undefined policy terms technical meanings. Instead, we give
them their ordinary meanings and look to dictionaries and caselaw for
guidance. A.Y. McDonald, 475 N.W.2d at 619. Farm Bureau offers
several dictionary definitions of “underwriting,” the most descriptive of
which is “the process of examining, accepting or rejecting insurance
risks, and classifying those selected in order to charge the proper
premium for each.” Harvey W. Rubin, Barron’s Dictionary of Insurance
Terms 551 (6th ed. 2013). Holmes Murphy notes, and we agree, that this
dictionary definition is consistent with the express language of the
exclusion at issue in this case and definitions applied by courts in other
jurisdictions. See, e.g., Mich. Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of
Md., 809 F. Supp. 2d 703, 711 (W.D. Mich. 2011) (underwriting is
“decision regarding which entities to insure”); In re PMA Capital Corp.
Sec. Litig., No. 03–6121, 2005 WL 1806503, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
(“underwriting[] involves the identification and selection of risks and the
determination of an adequate price of insuring those risks given the
expected losses”); Hosp. Corp. of Am. & Subsidiaries v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue, 74 T.C.M. 1020, 1997 WL 663283, at *2 (T.C. 1997)
(“Underwriting is the selection and pricing of risks to be insured.”);
Thomas C. Cady & Georgia Lee Gates, Post Claim Underwriting, 102 W.
Va. L. Rev. 809, 812 (2000) (underwriting includes “a risk assessment
11
conducted[] pre-issuance and pre-loss”). But cf. Vincent v. Safeco Ins. Co.
of Am., 29 P.3d 943, 945 (Idaho 2001) (“Underwriting is . . . the process
by which insurance companies determine whether the risk assumed is
worth the premium received.”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1665 (9th ed.
2009) (Underwriting is “[t]he act of assuming a risk by insuring it; the
insurance of life or property.”).
Insurers typically ask questions regarding an applicant’s medical
background as part of the underwriting process of determining which
persons or risks to insure. U.S. Congress Office of Tech. Assessment,
Aids and Health Insurance: An OTA Survey, Leaflet No. 2, at 1 (1988).
They may gather records regarding an applicant’s past and current
medical condition from an attending physician. Id. They may even
require an applicant undergo physical examination and medical testing.
Id. Using all this information, insurers engaged in the underwriting
process will determine not only whether to insure an applicant, but will
also determine the applicable premiums in any given case and may try to
limit potential costs and liabilities. Id. at 2.
Despite this common understanding of underwriting and its
associated activities, Farm Bureau contends an appropriate construction
of the underwriting exclusion cannot defeat coverage for the Smiths’
claims because they were “factually distinct” from claims that would
arise from the underwriting of insurance. In other words, Farm Bureau
explains, the Tenth Circuit never suggested the Smiths’ claims were for
Farm Bureau’s violation of a duty in its decision not to issue life
insurance policies, and thus, the claims could not have arisen from
underwriting. Holmes Murphy counters the district court correctly
concluded the Smiths’ claims “involved the failure of Farm Bureau, a life
insurance company, to properly notify an applicant for life insurance of
12
the results of the life insurance underwriting.” Further, Holmes Murphy
contends, the exclusion is not narrowly limited to claims for failure to
issue a policy or claims regarding the manner in which a decision has
been reached, but instead expressly extends more broadly to claims
“arising from” underwriting activities.
Given the ordinary definition of underwriting and its associated
activities, we cannot conclude Farm Bureau’s eligibility investigation and
management of information derived from it were outside the scope of the
underwriting exclusion here. We acknowledge that when viewed in
isolation, a procedure for extraction and examination of blood might not,
by itself, constitute underwriting activity. Nevertheless, we are tasked
here—according to the plain language of the policy and the exclusion—
with determining whether the Smiths’ claims arose out of Farm Bureau’s
alleged breach of a duty, and whether that duty arose from or was in
consequence of Farm Bureau’s underwriting activity. The Tenth Circuit’s
analysis of the Smiths’ claims, when examined in conjunction with the
ordinary definition of underwriting, aids us in answering both inquiries.
The basis for the viability of the Smiths’ claims under Wyoming
law, according to the Tenth Circuit, is Farm Bureau’s affirmative duty to
disclose sufficient information to its applicant in the event Farm Bureau
discovers in the course of its eligibility investigation the applicant is HIV
positive. Pehle, 397 F.3d at 903. That duty arose in this case because of
the nature of Farm Bureau’s relationship with the Smiths. The Farm
Bureau–Smith relationships were special, explained the Tenth Circuit,
because Farm Bureau had encouraged the Smiths’ purchases of the life
insurance policies, elicited their further trust by subjecting them to the
blood extraction and investigation, and as a result possessed information
of vital importance to the Smiths’ health and safety. Id. Having
13
considered these circumstances, the Tenth Circuit concluded the
affirmative duty will arise “if an insurance company, through
independent investigation by it or a third party for purposes of
determining policy eligibility, discovers that an applicant is infected with
HIV.” Id. In other words, the Tenth Circuit concluded both Farm
Bureau’s duty to reveal the information and the Smiths’ claims arose out
of the activities Farm Bureau undertook to determine the Smiths’
eligibility for insurance. That conclusion is instructive here. Farm
Bureau’s duty arose from its routine eligibility investigation, including
analysis of the applicants’ blood. Id. at 899. We think the Smiths’
claims, therefore, fall squarely within the range of claims contemplated
by the underwriting exclusion.
Two additional pieces of intrinsic evidence from the ICPL policy
bolster the conclusion that the underwriting exclusion precluded
coverage for the acts or omissions forming the basis of the Smiths’ claims
against Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau’s investigation and determination of
policy eligibility are fairly characterized as aspects of its classification
and selection of risk, which are specifically enumerated in the language
of the underwriting exclusion. We are not persuaded by Farm Bureau’s
contention that the claim here is not for identification of or failure to
identify a risk, but for failure to notify.8 Farm Bureau’s failure to notify
was actionable only if a duty to reveal the information was owed. The
duty recognized by the Tenth Circuit arose because of the nature of the
8Farm Bureau’s reliance on a Texas case involving an insured party not engaged
in the practice of underwriting for the proposition that the claim here does not arise out
of underwriting activity is unavailing. See HCC Empl’r Servs., Inc. v. Westchester Cnty.
Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. H-05-1275, 2006 WL 1663343, at *5 (S.D. Tex. 2006)
(holding negligent failure to notify regulatory body of lapse of insurance policy did not
arise out of underwriting of insurance). Indeed, that court hinted its analysis may have
been different had the insured party done the underwriting that gave rise to the claim.
Id.
14
special relationship between the parties. The special relationship arose
as a result of Farm Bureau’s policy eligibility investigation and the
information it derived from the investigation. Id. at 903 (noting
insurance companies need not exist to treat or diagnose HIV for the duty
to arise).
The policy’s definition of “insurance services,” from which any
claim covered by the policy must arise, further supports the conclusion
the underwriting exclusion precludes coverage for the Smiths’ claims
against Farm Bureau. Insurance services are defined as only those
services rendered in the conduct of “claims handling and adjusting,
insurance risk management; safety engineering; inspection and loss
control operations; personal injury rehabilitation operations; salvage
operations; recovery subrogation services; premium financing operations;
actuarial consulting services; or insurance pool management” and did
not include “medical or health care services” or other enumerated
professional services. Farm Bureau’s contention that the duty and
claims here relate “only to notification of medical test results” neglects
both the policy’s “insurance services” prerequisite for coverage and the
policy’s express exclusion of medical services from the definition of
insurance services.
We conclude under the facts here and the express provisions of the
ICPL policy that the duty recognized by the Tenth Circuit and the Smiths’
resulting claims arose out of Farm Bureau’s underwriting activity.9 The
9Farm Bureau suggests the Tenth Circuit’s justification for finding the
affirmative duty to notify—namely, the trust and confidence the Smiths reposed in
Farm Bureau—precludes us from determining the Smiths’ claims arose out of Farm
Bureau’s underwriting activity. We disagree. If indeed there were relationships of trust
and confidence here, we think it reasonable to conclude they were a consequence of
Farm Bureau’s eligibility investigation activity, which was “underwriting” activity under
the ordinary meaning of the word. That trust and confidence may arise in relationships
15
underwriting exclusion therefore precludes coverage for damages claimed
by the Smiths against Farm Bureau.
Finally, we note Farm Bureau further contends the underwriting
injury exclusion will, if given its literal, ordinary meaning, render the
ICPL policy illusory. Cf. First Newton Nat’l Bank, 426 N.W.2d at 629
(giving policy terms their literal, ordinary meaning and noting that an
alternate construction “would rob the insured of the very coverage he
assumed he was getting” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). Holmes Murphy disputes this contention, arguing that
coverage remains for (1) the vast majority of all claims for wrongful
conduct that might arise from the performance of insurance services,
and (2) most, if not all claims that might arise from the performance of,
or failure to perform, financial services (which are covered by the second
coverage clause in the policy). More specifically, Holmes Murphy
explains that coverage for retirement planning and investment services,
covered by the financial services clause, would not be precluded by the
underwriting exclusion. We take no position regarding the application of
the policy’s various exclusions to scenarios not presented in this appeal,
but note that Holmes Murphy has identified a specific group of claims
that may be covered by the ICPL policy here. See Vincent, 29 P.3d at 948
(explaining if an identifiable group may collect on a policy, insurance is
not illusory). We are not persuaded the ICPL coverage is so narrowed by
the exclusions as to be illusory. Moreover, we are bound to decide
coverage questions in view of the ICPL policy’s provisions and the
allegations of the Smiths’ complaint against Farm Bureau. See Stover v.
State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 189 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Iowa 1971). The terms of
___________________________
outside the insurance context does not change the nature of their origin in the
circumstances here.
16
the underwriting exclusion are unambiguous. We will not add to or
subtract from the parties’ contract based on public policy considerations
in the absence of legislative, regulatory, or prior judicial statement of
those considerations. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 697 N.W.2d at 117.
IV. Conclusion.
The district court correctly concluded the ICPL policy’s
underwriting exclusion would have precluded coverage for the Smiths’
claims even if Federal had been timely notified under the policy’s notice
requirement. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of Holmes Murphy.
AFFIRMED.