1. a. Except with respect to a policy containing both underinsured motor vehicle coverage and uninsured or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage, nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as requiring forms of coverage provided pursuant hereto, whether alone or in combination with similar coverage afforded under other automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policies, to afford limits in excess of those that would be afforded had the insured thereunder been involved in an accident with a motorist who was insured under a policy of liability insurance with the minimum limits for bodily injury or death prescribed in section 321A.1, subsection 11. Such forms of coverage may include terms, exclusions, limitations, conditions, and offsets which are designed to avoid duplication of insurance or other benefits. b. To the extent that Hernandez v. Farmers Insurance Company, 460 N.W.2d 842 (Iowa 1990), provided for interpolicy stacking of uninsured or underinsured coverages in contravention of specific contract or policy language, the general assembly declares such decision abrogated and declares that the enforcement of the antistacking provisions contained in a motor vehicle insurance policy does not frustrate the protection given to an insured under section 516A.1.
2. Pursuant to chapter 17A, the commissioner of insurance shall, by January 1, 1992, adopt \n Tue Dec 09 22:04:38 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 516A (26, 0) §516A.2, UNINSURED, UNDERINSURED, OR HIT-AND-RUN MOTORISTS 2\n\nrules to assure the availability, within the state, of motor vehicle insurance policies, riders, endorsements, or other similar forms of coverage, the terms of which shall provide for the stacking of uninsured and underinsured coverages with any similar coverage which may be available to an insured.
3. It is the intent of the general assembly that when more than one motor vehicle insurance policy is purchased by or on behalf of an injured insured and which provides uninsured, underinsured, or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage to an insured injured in an accident, the injured insured is entitled to recover up to an amount equal to the highest single limit for uninsured, underinsured, or hit-and-run motor vehicle coverage under any one of the above described motor vehicle insurance policies insuring the injured person which amount shall be paid by the insurers according to any priority of coverage provisions contained in the policies insuring the injured person. [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §516A.2] 91 Acts, ch 213, §30; 2012 Acts, ch 1023, §157 \n
Notes of Decisions
Miller v. Westfield Ins. Co., 606 N.W.2d 301 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 80× “2d at 374 (holding the UIM policy provision at issue "may be viewed as an attempt to avoid duplication of insurance coverage and is therefore permitted under Iowa Code section 516A.2" (emphasis added)). Our inconsistent application of the statute's duplication-of-benefits…”
Mewes v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., Inc., 530 N.W.2d 718 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 63× “First, the Mewes contend Iowa Code section 516A.2 (1993) does not prohibit payment by both IMT and State Farm in this case because the exception located in 516A.”
McClure v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 238 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1976).
· cites it 40× “The Iowa legislature enacted such a provision in a second section of the uninsured motorist insurance chapter, now § 516A.2 of the Code. This section closely resembles a corresponding section in Tennessee.”
Greenfield v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 737 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2007).
· cites it 16× “” When such language is included in policies covering underinsured motorists, it is referred to generically as a reduction-of-benefits provision.”
Gentry v. Wise, 537 N.W.2d 732 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 40× “” Iowa Code § 516A.2. In construing section 516A.”
Lemrick v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 263 N.W.2d 714 (Iowa 1978).
· cites it 24× “The courts are divided on the validity of such clauses in states having statutes containing only provisions corresponding to our § 516A.”
Lemars Mut. Ins. Co. v. Joffer, 574 N.W.2d 303 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 19× “1 provides that no automobile or motor vehicle liability insurance policy may be issued in Iowa unless uninsured, underinsured and hit-and-run coverage is included in the policy.”
Mortensen v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 590 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1999).
· cites it 43× “Iowa Code § 516A.2 (1997). 3 . Although technically inaccurate and potentially misleading, some courts use other insurance clauses to find amounts under one coverage should be offset against the limits of second coverage, and conclude stacking is not permitted.”
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Est. of Tollari, 362 N.W.2d 519 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 16× “Iowa Code § 516A.2. In the event of payment to any person under the coverage required by this chapter and subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, the insurer making such payment shall, to the extent thereof, be entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment…”
Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minnesota v. Gooyer, 379 N.W.2d 16 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 20× “The determinative issue in this appeal is whether an underinsured motorist provision which prevents the “stacking or pyramiding” of coverages is a valid limitation under Iowa Code section 516A.2. The insurance policy in question provided, under-insurance motorist coverage on…”
Ciha v. Irons, 509 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 1993).
· cites it 24× “The Cihas claim that, effective July 1, 1991, section 516A.2 was amended by the legislature to abrogate prior case law upholding such clauses, rendering American Family’s exclusion void as a matter of law.”
— Iowa Code § 516A.2(1) — 18 cases
Miller v. Westfield Ins. Co., 606 N.W.2d 301 (Iowa 2000).
“2d at 374 (holding the UIM policy provision at issue "may be viewed as an attempt to avoid duplication of insurance coverage and is therefore permitted under Iowa Code section 516A.2" (emphasis added)). Our inconsistent application of the statute's duplication-of-benefits…”
Greenfield v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 737 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2007).
“” When such language is included in policies covering underinsured motorists, it is referred to generically as a reduction-of-benefits provision.”
Mewes v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., Inc., 530 N.W.2d 718 (Iowa 1995).
“First, the Mewes contend Iowa Code section 516A.2 (1993) does not prohibit payment by both IMT and State Farm in this case because the exception located in 516A.”
— Iowa Code § 516A.2(2) — 4 cases
Mortensen v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 590 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1999).
“Iowa Code § 516A.2 (1997). 3 . Although technically inaccurate and potentially misleading, some courts use other insurance clauses to find amounts under one coverage should be offset against the limits of second coverage, and conclude stacking is not permitted.”
Ciha v. Irons, 509 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 1993).
“The Cihas claim that, effective July 1, 1991, section 516A.2 was amended by the legislature to abrogate prior case law upholding such clauses, rendering American Family’s exclusion void as a matter of law.”
— Iowa Code § 516A.2(3) — 6 cases
Mewes v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., Inc., 530 N.W.2d 718 (Iowa 1995).
“First, the Mewes contend Iowa Code section 516A.2 (1993) does not prohibit payment by both IMT and State Farm in this case because the exception located in 516A.”
Mortensen v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 590 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1999).
“Iowa Code § 516A.2 (1997). 3 . Although technically inaccurate and potentially misleading, some courts use other insurance clauses to find amounts under one coverage should be offset against the limits of second coverage, and conclude stacking is not permitted.”
Ciha v. Irons, 509 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 1993).
“The Cihas claim that, effective July 1, 1991, section 516A.2 was amended by the legislature to abrogate prior case law upholding such clauses, rendering American Family’s exclusion void as a matter of law.”
— Iowa Code § 516A.2(l) — 1 case
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.