May 15, 2013
GAILA M. EHLERS, PLAINTIFF,
GERALD K. SCHIMMELPFENNIG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
EAGLE NATIONAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, N/K/A CAMERON MUTUAL INS. CO., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Dan F. Morrison, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bower, J.
Gerald K. Schimmelpfennig appeals from the district court ruling on his indemnification request. AFFIRMED.
Considered by Eisenhauer, C.J., and Danilson and Bower, JJ.
Gerald K. Schimmelpfennig appeals from the district court ruling on his indemnification request. Schimmelpfennig argues that the district court failed to award attorney fees, and interest. Schimmelpfennig also requests appellate attorney fees. Because we find that all amounts owed have been paid, we affirm.
I. Background Proceedings and Facts
This dispute makes its second appearance before this court, and has once appeared before our supreme court. At issue is the payment of attorney fees and interest due under the indemnification clause of an insurance contract.
The parties have been adversaries since 1997. Schimmelpfennig was, along with Cameron Mutual Insurance Company, a defendant in the initial action.*fn1 The first appeal, to this court, resulted in the grant of a new trial to the plaintiff, reversed a ruling granting a new trial to Cameron Mutual, and assessed costs of the appeal to Schimmelpfennig. Cameron Mutual filed a motion to determine the amount of attorney fees owed. The district court determined the amount to be $14,673. After a motion to reconsider was denied, Schimmelpfennig appealed to our supreme court which issued a detailed opinion concerning the amounts owed. Cameron Mutual argues they have overpaid the amount ordered by our supreme court.
Nearly ten years after the opinion, Schimmelpfennig filed a motion requesting indemnification for unpaid fees and interest. The district court denied the motion, finding no basis to grant the request. After a motion to reconsider was denied, Schimmelpennig appealed.
II. Standard of Review
We review the question of interest for errors at law. Opperman v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 652 N.W.2d 139, 142 (Iowa 2002).
Schimmelpfennig's arguments on appeal are unclear and difficult to follow.*fn2 Though he fails to set forth a concise statement of his argument, it appears his contention is that the district court erred in failing to order an additional award of interest since our supreme court's opinion of April 3, 2002. See Schimmelpfennig v. Eagle Nat. Assur. Corp., 641 N.W.2d 814 (Iowa 2002).
In the earlier appeal, our supreme court awarded fees and interest as follows:
Schimmelpfennig is entitled to recover interest on the $67.45 deposition cost from September 10, 1997, the time of payment, at the rate of five percent per annum. He is entitled to interest on the payment of $1926 for lost wages and medical expenses from July 31, 1996, the time of payment, at the rate of five percent per annum. That interest should run from the dates indicated until March 20, 2000, and be aggregated with the principal amount of the March 20, 2000 judgment. The aggregated total shall draw interest from that date at the rate specified in section 535.3. On return of the procedendo, a corrected judgment shall be entered.
Id. at 816. Cameron Mutual's Exhibit H accurately sets out the
timeline of payments and amounts due in the case. Cameron Mutual
tendered a payment of $10,000 on December 27, 1999.*fn3
The district court, on March 20, 2000, determined that the
amount due was $14,673.45. Cameron Mutual made a payment one week
later of $4673, plus an additional payment of $60 on October 4, 2000.
Our supreme court required an additional $363.88, which was overpaid
on June 13, 2002 by a payment of $381.93. Schimmelpfennig has
apparently refused to cash this check and, nearly ten years later,
wishes to collect interest on the amount paid him because he does not
agree with the interest calculation. Schimmelpfennig has been unable,
however, to provide an alternative calculation. We agree with the
district court that all amounts due have been paid and we can find no
basis upon which an additional payment of interest could be ordered.
Schimmelpfennig also requests an award of fees for the district court proceedings in this case, as well as for the costs of this appeal. The district court did not address a request of fees and Schimmelpfennig did not request a ruling on that issue in his motion to reconsider. Because the issue was not raised and decided by the district court, it is not preserved for our review. See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012).
Cameron Mutual also requests an award of fees in connection with having to defend this appeal. Fee awards rest with our discretion. McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733, 740 (Iowa 2010). We decline to grant the requested attorney fees in this matter.