Simon Estes v. Progressive Classic Insurance Company

Summary

The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed an underinsured motorist benefits dispute between Simon Estes and Progressive Classic Insurance Company. The court held that the denial of Progressive’s motion for summary judgment was not reviewable after trial and that Estes’s posttrial motion seeking a different interest-accrual date was untimely. It vacated the court of appeals decision, affirmed the judgment requiring payment of the $300,000 policy limit, reversed the modified interest award, and remanded.

Holdings

1. An order overruling a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable when the district court found a genuine issue of material fact and the case proceeded to final trial. The issues raised in the summary-judgment motion may instead be reviewed on the trial record and any motion for directed verdict.
2. The court would not review Progressive's arguments concerning the consent-to-settlement and exhaustion provisions because Progressive appealed only the denial of summary judgment and failed to provide a record showing that it raised and preserved those issues after the case proceeded to trial.
3. Estes's motion to modify the judgment was untimely because it was filed more than ten days after entry of the original judgment awarding interest, and Progressive's timely motion for a new trial did not toll the deadline for Estes to file a separate posttrial motion raising a new ground.
4. The district court erred by modifying the judgment to award interest from the date Estes filed the underlying tort action. The judgment must calculate interest from the date Estes filed his petition against Progressive, as stated in the original interest award.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an order denying an insurer's motion for summary judgment is reviewable after the case proceeds to trial.
2. Whether Progressive preserved its challenges to the policy's consent-to-settlement and exhaustion provisions when it appealed only the denial of summary judgment and did not provide a trial transcript showing that it raised those issues after trial.
3. Whether Estes timely filed his motion to modify the judgment and change the date from which postjudgment interest accrued.
4. Whether the district court properly awarded interest from the date Estes filed the underlying tort action rather than from the date he filed the action against Progressive.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded