Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corporationgreen2 sentences2021“A reasonable cause or excuse exists if either (1) the delay was necessary for the insurer to investigate the claim or (2) the employer had a reasonable basis to contest the employee’s entitlement to benefits.” Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 554 N.W.2d 254, 260 (Iowa 1996). 13 Section 86.13 does not require that the lack of a reasonable excuse be due to any particular type of conduct by the insurer, whether negligent, reckless or intentional. 2014A reasonable or probable cause or excuse exists if either “(1) the delay was necessary for the insurer to investigate the claim or (2) the employer had a reasonable basis to contest the employee's entitlement to benefits.” IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210, 222 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 554 N.W.2d 254, 260 (Iowa 1996)). | 11 | 17 |
IBP, Inc. v. Burressgreen2 sentences2014A reasonable or probable cause or excuse exists if either “(1) the delay was necessary for the insurer to investigate the claim or (2) the employer had a reasonable basis to contest the employee's entitlement to benefits.” IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210, 222 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 554 N.W.2d 254, 260 (Iowa 1996)). 2012A ‘reasonable basis’ for denial of the claim exists if the claim is ‘fairly debatable.’ ” IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210, 222 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 554 N.W.2d 254, 260 (Iowa 1996)). “‘A claim is “fairly debatable” when it is open to dispute on any logical basis.’ Whether a claim is ‘fairly debatable’ can generally be determined by the court as a matter of law.” Rodda v. Vermeer Mfg., 734 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 2007) (citation omitted). “[T]he reasonableness of the employer’s denial or termination of benefits does not turn on whether the employer was righ | 2 | 2 |
Kiesecker v. Webster City Custom Meats, Inc.green2 sentences2001See Kiesecker v. Webster City Custom Meats, Inc., 528 N.W.2d 109, 111 (Iowa 1995). 1999Id.; see also Kiesecker v. Webster City Custom Meats Inc., 528 N.W.2d 109, 111 (Iowa 1995); Covia v. Robinson, 507 N.W.2d 411, 416 (Iowa 1993). | 2 | 2 |
Rodda v. Vermeer Manufacturinggreen2 sentences2012A ‘reasonable basis’ for denial of the claim exists if the claim is ‘fairly debatable.’ ” IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210, 222 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 554 N.W.2d 254, 260 (Iowa 1996)). “‘A claim is “fairly debatable” when it is open to dispute on any logical basis.’ Whether a claim is ‘fairly debatable’ can generally be determined by the court as a matter of law.” Rodda v. Vermeer Mfg., 734 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 2007) (citation omitted). “[T]he reasonableness of the employer’s denial or termination of benefits does not turn on whether the employer was righ 2012A ‘reasonable basis’ for denial of the claim exists if the claim is ‘fairly debatable.’ ” IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210, 222 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 554 N.W.2d 254, 260 (Iowa 1996)). “ ‘A claim is “fairly debatable” when it is open to dispute on any logical basis.’ Whether a claim is ‘fairly debatable’ can generally be determined by the court as a matter of law.” Rodda v. Vermeer Mfg., 734 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 2007) (citation omitted). “[T]he reasonableness of the employer’s denial or termination of benefits does not turn on whether the employer was rig | 1 | 1 |
Covia v. Robinsongreen1 sentence1999Id.; see also Kiesecker v. Webster City Custom Meats Inc., 528 N.W.2d 109, 111 (Iowa 1995); Covia v. Robinson, 507 N.W.2d 411, 416 (Iowa 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dolan v. Aid Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1996A “reasonable basis” for denial of the claim exists if the claim is “fairly debatable.” Use of the bad faith “fairly debatable” standard does not require that we also use the second element of a bad-faith claim: the insurer’s “knowledge or reckless disregard of the lack of a reasonable basis for denying the claim.” See Dolan, 431 N.W.2d at 794 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Pirkl v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Ass'n
green
1 sentence1991Pirkl, 348 N.W.2d at 635 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.