Opinion
No. 6-062 / 05-0110
Filed March 1, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Michael S. Walsh, Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants, Clarence and Clyda Novotny, appeal the district court's denial of their post-trial motions. AFFIRMED.
Robert W. Green, Sioux City, for appellant.
Emmanuel Bikakis of Bikakis, Arneson, Karpuk Hindman, Sioux City, for appellees.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Plaintiffs-appellants, Clarence and Clyda Novotny, sued defendant-appellee, Farmers Insurance Company, claiming water damage to the house they owned was covered by the insurance policy they purchased from defendant. The district court held plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the damage was covered by the policy and ruled in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs appeal the district court's denial of their post-trial motion to amend or enlarge the district court's findings and conclusions and their post-trial motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
Plaintiffs own an upstairs/downstairs duplex house in Sioux City. Plaintiffs lived in the downstairs unit and rented out the upstairs unit. The duplex incurred substantial water damage. The cause of the water damage was disputed by the parties. The district court held that the water damage in question was caused by various known and unknown causes. In particular, the district court found the credible evidence supported defendant's theory that much of the damage was caused by a cracked and leaking soil pipe. Pertinent to that theory, the bearing wall in the basement was sagging due to the removal of soil in the basement many years ago to make room for a heating system. Due to the soil being dug out around the bearing wall, the wall was settling which caused the house to sag four to six inches. This settlement of the house caused stress on the soil pipe, and combined with the aging of the pipe, this caused the soil pipe to crack and leak. The district court held that the resulting water damage was not covered by the insurance policy. The policy clearly and unambiguously stated that losses caused directly or indirectly by earth movement, such as water leaks caused by settling, were not covered.
Plaintiffs contended the water damage was actually caused by accidental disconnection of the domestic water supply line in the course of repairs made to the upstairs bathroom sink. The district court did not believe plaintiffs' claims were credible. The district court found that when the insurance adjuster visited the house after plaintiffs filed a claim, plaintiffs advised the adjuster that a soil pipe had broken and caused the water damage. Consistent with the claim of a broken and leaking soil pipe, plaintiffs provided the adjuster with a piece of broken cast-iron soil pipe and showed the adjuster where there was damage to the soil pipe. Furthermore, plaintiffs never took the adjuster to the second floor to show the adjuster where the water supply line leak allegedly originated. The district court also noted that plaintiffs' theory of a disconnection of the water supply line was not asserted until after defendant denied the claim because a leak from a soil pipe caused by earth movement was not covered by the insurance policy.
Plaintiffs filed a post-trial motion to amend or enlarge the findings and conclusions of the district court, pursuant Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), and a post-trial motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1003. The motions were denied. Plaintiffs appeal the denial of the post-trial motions arguing that the evidence supports their claim the water damage was caused by accidental disconnection of the water supply pipe.
II. SCOPE OF REVIEW.
We review a case tried at law in the district court on errors assigned. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Claus v. Whyle, 526 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Iowa 1994). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, and we construe the findings of the trial court liberally to uphold, rather than defeat, the judgment. Whyle, 526 N.W.2d at 523. The trial court's findings of fact have the effect of a special verdict and are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Claus, 526 N.W.2d at 523.
III. ANALYSIS.
Defendant argues plaintiffs did not file a timely notice of appeal and, thus, we are without jurisdiction to hear this case. We conclude the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file post-trial motions was appropriate. See Williamson Heater Co. v. Whitmer , 191 Iowa 1115, 1119, 183 N.W. 404, 405 (1921). Therefore, the period to file a notice of appeal was tolled and its subsequent filing was timely. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.5(1)
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the district court. The engineering report obtained by defendant indicates that the soil pipe cracked and leaked due to earth movement, causing the water damage. The insurance adjuster testified that plaintiffs indicated to him that the water damage was caused by the leaking soil pipe and plaintiffs gave him a piece of the cracked soil pipe. Plaintiffs did not inform the adjuster that a water supply pipe had come loose from an upstairs sink. A city housing inspector testified plaintiffs' house was repeatedly found to be in poor repair. In previous years, the city had instructed plaintiffs to repair a leaking roof and refinish the kitchen ceiling due to water damage. Additionally, the city documented complaints of roof leaks, bathtub leaks, toilet leaks, kitchen sink leaks, and that the basement smelled of feces. Clarence Novotny admitted in his testimony that an upstairs tenant had let the bathtub overflow a couple of times, which had caused damage to the ceiling of the downstairs unit. There is substantial evidence to support the district court's findings.