invalidating to the extent of the minimum coverage required by statute an exclusion that eliminated liability coverage for injury to members of the family of an insured who reside in the same household as the insured
How later courts described this case
- invalidating to the extent of the minimum coverage required by statute an exclusion that eliminated liability coverage for injury to members of the family of an insured who reside in the same household as the insured
- stating that household exclusion provision’s “invalidity is limited to the statutory minimum required coverage”
- household exclusion in insurance contract was invalid as it violated the legislative mandate for compulsory liability insurance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HODGES, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
■ The majority holds that the familial-household exclusion clause’s invalidity is limited to the statutory minimum coverage by Equity Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spring Valley Wholesale Nursery, Inc., 747 P.2d 947 (Okla.1987). I disagree with this holding.
Oklahoma’s compulsory liability insurance law requires that both an owner’s and an operator’s liability insurance policy insure “against loss from the liability imposed by law.” See Okla.Stat. tit. 47 §§ 7-600(l)(b) and 7-600(2) (1991). In Unah v. Martin, 676 P.2d 1366 (Okla.1984), this Court abrogated parent-child immunity to the extent of automobile liability insurance coverage, not to the extent of statutory minimum coverage. Michael George, the father, was liable for the entire amount of the judgment of $130,-000.00 — not just the statutory minimum. The statute, this court’s holding in Unah , and the judgment all point to the conclusion that the familial exclusion clause should be completely invalidated.
Based on Oklahoma’s compulsory liability insurance law and this Court’s opinion in Unah , Michael George had a reasonable expectation that his insurance policy provided protection “against loss from the liability imposed by law” to the extent of its limits, not to the minimum required by statute.
As the Court of appeals noted:
The minor child was not a party to the contract, did not qualify as a named insured, had no control over the insurance contract or the operation of the insured vehicle as would a spouse, had nothing to say about being in the car at the time in question, and finally, the five-year-old was incapable of fraud or collusion. We see no reason why such a child should not be treated like any other injured party and his estate [be] permitted to recover the full amount of the judgment from the insurance carrier, at least to the extent of the policy limits.
For these reasons, I would hold that a familial-household exclusion clause’s invalidity is not limited to the statutory minimum liability coverage. To hold otherwise would “permit the significant number of losses which do exceed minimum limits to be left uninsured to the extent of the excess” above the statutory minimum coverage, Keystone Ins. Co. v. Atlantic Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 167 N.J.Super. 363 , 400 A.2d 872, 876 (Ct.Law Div.1979), and expose Michael George to liability of $85,000 which is not covered by insurance.