1. Prior to repairing or replacing damaged motor vehicle glass for an insured person, a
motor vehicle glass repair shop shall notify the insured person whether the motor vehicle has
an advanced driver assistance system. If the motor vehicle has an advanced driver assistance
system, the shop shall also notify the insured person of all of the following:
a. Whether calibration or recalibration of the motor vehicle’s advanced driver assistance
system is needed after a windshield repair or replacement, in accordance with the vehicle
manufacturer’s recommendations.
b. Whether the shop intends to calibrate or recalibrate the advanced driver assistance
system in a manner that meets the motor vehicle manufacturer’s specifications.
c. If the shop is not capable of performing, or does not intend to perform, a calibration
or recalibration, the shop shall advise the insured person to take the motor vehicle to the
vehicle manufacturer’s certified dealership or a qualified specialist capable of performing the
calibration or recalibration.
2. If calibration or recalibration of the motor vehicle’s advanced driver assistance system
is performed, the shop shall provide notice to the insured person of whether the calibration
or recalibration was successful. If the calibration or recalibration was not successful, the
shop shall advise the insured person to take the motor vehicle to the vehicle manufacturer’s
certified dealership or a qualified specialist capable of performing the calibration or
recalibration.
2025 Acts, ch 58, §3, 10
Referred to in §321B.4
Section applies to insurance policies issued or renewed on or after July 1, 2025; 2025 Acts, ch 58, §10
NEW section
\n
Notes of Decisions
State of Iowa v. Carrie McIver, 858 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2015).
· cites it 12× “2014) (“Usually, in cases of genuine uncertainty about a statute’s meaning and application, courts must consider the particular problem the legislature was addressing, prior legislative consideration of the problem, the act’s legislative history, operation, and administration,…”
Krueger v. Fulton, 169 N.W.2d 875 (Iowa 1969).
· cites it 24× “He asserts the trial court erred (1) in concluding plaintiff, after consulting with counsel, had a right to retract his refusal of a blood test, although the two-hour limitation was ended or about to end and (2) in holding arrangements should have been made to have granted the…”
State v. Meissner, 315 N.W.2d 738 (Iowa 1982).
· cites it 24× “11, The Code, provides: If the person under arrest refuses to submit to the test or tests, proof of refusal shall be admissible in any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating a motor vehicle upon a…”
State v. Owens, 418 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa 1988).
· cites it 9× “See Iowa Code § 321B.3. And even without this knowledge, the officer had authority under the statute to request a preliminary test: such a request is proper when “the operator has been involved in a motor vehicle collision resulting in .”
Rodriguez v. Fulton, 190 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 1971).
· cites it 19× “The sole question before us here is whether, under section 321B.3 a blood test must be offered and refused before a motorist's license to drive can be revoked for his refusal to take a breath, saliva or urine test.”
State v. Fischer, 785 N.W.2d 697 (Iowa 2010).
· cites it 4× “6(1). Although not contained in the New York statute used as a model for Iowa’s implied-consent law, the current “written .”
State v. Palmer, 554 N.W.2d 859 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 6× “only after the peace officer has placed such person under arrest-” See Iowa Code § 321B.3 (1979) (emphasis added).”
State v. Deshaw, 404 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1987).
· cites it 10× “Iowa Code § 321B.3. The State does not contend it was necessary to prove that a chemical test was properly requested.”
State v. Charlson, 154 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 1967).
· cites it 9× “It is said that because of these two facts the Implied Consent Law, mainly sections 321B.3 and 321B.4, renders inadmissible on the trial of a charge of OMVI evidence of the result of the blood test.”
State v. Schlemme, 301 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1981).
· cites it 5× “Defendant asserted that section 321B.3 requires that the defendant be arrested by the same officer who requests the blood test.”
State v. Vietor, 261 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 1978).
· cites it 3× “He read to Irvin the following from that form: “Refusal to submit to the withdrawal of a body specimen for chemical tests to determine the alcoholic content will result in revocation of your driver’s license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle for not less than 120 days nor…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.