Prior Litigation Exclusion Bars Coverage for County Facing Land Regulation Claims; Reasonable Expectations Doctrine Unavailing in Face of Clear Language and Facts Showing Relatedness of Lawsuit during Coverage Period and Prior Lawsuit
爱荷华州最高法院裁定，县政府的后续诉讼因与先诉事实相关，被保单的先诉排除条款排除在保险覆盖之外，合理期待原则不适用。
Monroe County, Iowa v. International Insurance Co., 609 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa Supreme Court, April 26, 2000). The problem started for Monroe County, Iowa, when Iowa Coal Mining Company and Star Coal Mining Company sued it more than a decade ago, first alleging something akin to detrimental reliance on changed regulatory decisions and then alleging tortious interference with contracts relating to utility and industrial ash placed in the landfills. The coal companies obtained substantial tort judgments that were affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. See Iowa Coal Mining Co. v. Montre County, 494 N.W.2d 664 (Iowa 1993); Iowa Coal Mining Co. v. Monroe County, 555 N.W.2d 418 (Iowa 1996). The problem continued when the county sought indemnity for the second judgment from its claims-made insurers, International and Mount Airy. The insurers successfully argued that the second liability was sufficiently connected to the first to be barred from coverage by the policies' prior litigation exclusion. The International policy covered the January 1, 1993, to January 1, 1994, period, while the Mount Airy policy covered the January 1, 1994, to January 1, 1995, period. Both policies contained an exclusion providing that: It is understood and agreed that the insurer shall not be responsible for making any payment for loss in connection with any claim made against any insured upon, arising out of, in consequence of, or in any way involving: (1) Any prior and/or pending litigation as of 01/01/92 including but not limited to matters before local, state, or federal boards, commissions, or administrative agencies, or (2) Any fact, circumstance, or situation underlying or in such litigation or matter. 609 N.W.2d at 524 (emphasis added). The first Iowa Coal case was filed in 1988, which obviously predated the January 1, 1993, inception of the International policy. However, the second Iowa Coal case did not commence until May 1993, during the International policy period. International argued that the exclusion still applied because Iowa Coal II was based on facts underlying or alleged in Iowa Coal I. The state Supreme Court agreed. The Court found the exclusion unambiguous as applied to uncontested facts of the dispute and affirmed the lower courts' grant of summary judgment to the insurers: We discern nothing in the language of the exclusions relied on by the district court that requires that a claim, in order to be excluded, must involve the same legal theory, wrongful acts, or requests for relief. On the contrary, these exclusions are phrased in the disjunctive. A claim is excluded if it is upon or in any way involves any fact, circumstance, or situation underlying or in litigation pending on January 1, 1992. or pursued prior thereto. The foundation for the tort recovery in Iowa Coal II was a contract that the plaintiffs in that action had with a company known as Metro Waste to transport the latter's incinerated sewage sludge ash to a landfill site controlled by those plaintiffs. Evidence was presented that, if the county had not sought to block this arrangement by improper means, the transaction would have produced a $850,000 profit to the entities controlling the landfill site. …