 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Zomer v. West River Farms9/14/2005
fact. We therefore uphold the commissioner's denial of a further evidentiary hearing on the issue.
IMT argues third that the commissioner's action reforming the contract was in equity and that the proper standard of review is de novo. We disagree. The commissioner, as an administrative agency, retains only (1) the powers expressly conferred by statute and (2) the powers necessarily inferred from those powers expressly granted. Zomer, 666 N.W.2d at 132. In interpreting the powers granted to the commissioner, the supreme court found that the legislature granted the commissioner the jurisdiction to decide "any issue necessary to a determination of whether a claimant is entitled to workers' compensation benefits." Id. Thus, in the first Zomer, the supreme court concluded that the power to reform a contract was granted to the commissioner by statute. Id. at 135. Contract reformation is a provision in the law within the discretion of the agency. We review findings made within the discretion of the agency for errors at law. Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1995) ("The standard by which we review decisions of administrative agencies is well-settled. We review an agency's decision for errors of law and do not exercise a de novo review.") Because neither the legislature nor the supreme court has expressly specified that contract reformation by an agency is tried in equity or reviewed de novo, we find the district court properly reviewed the issue in accordance with Iowa Code section 17A.19. See Zomer, 666 N.W.2d at 135.
IMT argues fourth and finally that the district court erred in affirming the commissioner's finding of mutual mistake. Specifically, IMT argues Zomer failed to meet the burden of showing both parties were mistaken with regard to West River Farms' policy coverage. IMT claims that the only evidence offered by Zomer and the commissioner was that small-town insurance agents in Iowa must know to whom their insured's daughters are married.
In determining whether the district court erred, we apply the standards of section 17A.19 to the agency action to determine whether our conclusions are the same as the district court. E.N.T. Assocs. v. Collentine, 525 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Iowa 1994). First, the commissioner supported his decision with specific factual findings based on his credibility determinations. We afford great deference to these credibility findings. Second, as noted above, we found several instances in the record referring to the intent of the parties with respect to West River Farms' insurance coverage. Third, the commissioner is not limited to accepting evidence that would be admissible at trial. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d at 630. We think it appropriate that an insurance agent in a small, rural community would know to whom their insured's daughter is married, particularly when the individual to whom the daughter is married is the only person employed by the insured and the only person who could be covered as an employee under the insured's workers' compensation insurance policy. This seems particularly true when the insured has been doing all her insurance business with the same local agency for well over ten years, as Blom did in this case. Because we find the commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the district court's decision.
AFFIRMED.
Miller, J., concurs; Sackett, C.J., dissents.
SACKETT, C.J. (dissenting)
I dissent. The agency is exercising equitable powers. Review by the court should be de novo. Exercising de novo review I would reverse.
|