physical contact requirement in Iowa

5 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2012 0 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Taneia Galloway Vs. State Of Iowagreen iowa · 2010 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012Rather, “ ‘[w]e must look to the Constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions of [this] state, to determine [our] public policy and that which is not prohibited by statute, condemned by judicial decision, nor contrary to the public morals contravenes no principle of public policy.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 780 (Iowa 2003)). “[D]espite the difficulty of characterizing the exact elements of the public interest, we have considered and weighed public policy concerns when deciding important legal issues.” Galloway v. State, 790 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 2010) (“acknowl	1	1
In Re the Marriage of Wittengreen iowa · 2003 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012Rather, “ ‘[w]e must look to the Constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions of [this] state, to determine [our] public policy and that which is not prohibited by statute, condemned by judicial decision, nor contrary to the public morals contravenes no principle of public policy.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 780 (Iowa 2003)). “[D]espite the difficulty of characterizing the exact elements of the public interest, we have considered and weighed public policy concerns when deciding important legal issues.” Galloway v. State, 790 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 2010) (“acknowl	1	1
Claude v. Guaranty National Insurance Co.green iowa · 2004 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012Co., 679 N.W.2d 659, 663 (Iowa 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that a physical contact requirement for underinsured motorist coverage was not against any recognized public policy). 2012Rather, “ ‘[w]e must look to the Constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions of [this] state, to determine [our] public policy and that which is not prohibited by statute, condemned by judicial decision, nor contrary to the public morals contravenes no principle of public policy.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 780 (Iowa 2003)). “[D]espite the difficulty of characterizing the exact elements of the public interest, we have considered and weighed public policy concerns when deciding important legal issues.” Galloway v. State, 790 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 2010) (“acknowl	1	1
Rohret v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.green iowa · 1979 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Moreover, unlike the guest statute, where numerous exceptions to the statute significantly diluted its effectiveness, see Bier-kamp, 293 N.W.2d at 584 (noting exceptions rendered statute underinclusive), there are no exceptions to the physical-contact requirement of section 516A.1; when the accident involves a hit-and-run driver, there must be physical contact to qualify for UM benefits, see Rohret, 276 N.W.2d at 420 (“ ‘The statute makes proof of physical contact a condition precedent in every case for the recovery of damages caused by an unknown vehicle.	1	1
Brunmeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchangegreen minn · 1973 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 2 sentences 1980In Bmnmeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 328, 331 , 208 N.W.2d 860, 862 (1973), we stated: “ . . . [I]t was the intention of the legislature to confer on automobile liability policyholders benefits against uninsured motorists in no less amounts than such policyholders would have realized against insured motorists.” 268 N.W.2d at 733 . 1980In Bmnmeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 328, 331 , 208 N.W.2d 860, 862 (1973), we stated: “ . . . [I]t was the intention of the legislature to confer on automobile liability policyholders benefits against uninsured motorists in no less amounts than such policyholders would have realized against insured motorists.” 268 N.W.2d at 733 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Moritz Ex Rel. Moritz v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. green iowa · 1989 1 sentence 2004The plaintiff asks us to revisit our conclusion in Moritz that the physical-contact requirement of section 516A.I does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the Iowa and United States constitutions. 3 434 N.W.2d at 626-27 .	1	2004–2004
Hamric v. Doe green wva · 1997 1 sentence 2004In that case, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled "that some of the rationale underlying the physical contact requirement is unjustified and that this absolute standard for recovery should be abandoned.” Hamric, 499 S.E.2d at 624 .	1	2004–2004
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. Fields green ark · 1977 1 sentence 1997Southern Farm Bureau, 553 S.W.2d at 279 .	1	1997–1997
Halseth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. green minn · 1978 1 sentence 1980In Bmnmeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 328, 331 , 208 N.W.2d 860, 862 (1973), we stated: “ . . . [I]t was the intention of the legislature to confer on automobile liability policyholders benefits against uninsured motorists in no less amounts than such policyholders would have realized against insured motorists.” 268 N.W.2d at 733 .	1	1980–1980
Coker Ex Rel. Estate of Coker v. Nationwide Insurance green sc · 1968 2 sentences 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968). 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968).	1	1979–1979
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Carlson green gactapp · 1973 2 sentences 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968). 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968).	1	1979–1979
Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance green cal · 1972 2 sentences 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968). 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968).	1	1979–1979
Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp. green michctapp · 1972 2 sentences 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968). 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968).	1	1979–1979
In re the Arbitration between Smith green ny · 1971 2 sentences 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968). 1979Orpustan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cal.3d 988 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 919 , 500 P.2d 1119 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlson, 130 Ga.App. 27 , 202 S.E.2d 213 (1973); Basilla v. Aetna Insurance Corp., 38 Mich.App. 260 , 195 N.W.2d 893 (1972) (mem.); Smith v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 116 , 324 N.Y.S.2d 15 , 272 N.E.2d 528 (1971); Coker v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 175 , 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968).	1	1979–1979

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IA § Iowa Code § 516A.1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 16 (1978–2016) MI 16 (1978–2020) IL 12 (1986–2021) CA 10 (1967–2013) AZ 9 (1975–2006) KY 9 (1977–2005) WV 9 (1987–2022) WI 8 (1983–2007) LA 8 (1975–2003) PA 7 (1974–2021) TX 6 (1993–2008) IA 5 (1979–2012) AR 4 (1978–2007) ID 4 (1985–2011) NY 4 (1986–2007) CT 4 (1992–2018) NC 3 (2008–2017) SC 3 (1985–2010) MN 3 (1978–1989) MS 2 (1987–2002) TN 2 (1968–1983) NE 2 (1976–1989) MT 2 (1985–2011) VA 2 (1993–2015) SD 2 (1978–2012) DE 2 (1977–1978) MD 2 (1989–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check