in 1979 legislature mandated liability insurance; court held that a parent is not immune from suit brought by his child under the age of emancipation in cases involving parental negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle
How later courts described this case
- in 1979 legislature mandated liability insurance; court held that a parent is not immune from suit brought by his child under the age of emancipation in cases involving parental negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle
- invalidating provision in auto insurance policy that did not "honor the reasonable expectations" of the insured
- invalidating household exclusion in auto policy as violating §61-6-301(1) because it removed all coverage to household members
- applying reasonable expectations doctrine to invalidate exclusion because automobile insurance policy was “adhesion contract”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE SHEA,
specially concurring:
I join the majority on the issue of the “household exclusion” in the insurance policy. I would go another step, however, on the question of parental immunity and simply declare that this Court does not recognize the doctrine and if it is to be recognized, it is a question for the legislature, not for the courts.
The majority confines the abolition of parental immunity to “actions brought against a parent by a child under the age of emancipation injured in the operation of a motor vehicle.” But, as long as this Court has now refused to recognize this doctrine, we should not decide that possibly we may recognize it in another context than that which has been presented here. If parental immunity is to be recognized completely, or in any limited form, it seems to me that the legislature is the proper place to determine the circumstances in which it should or should not be so recognized. These are public policy questions better left to the legislature; we are ill-equipped to undertake that task.