20th Century Insurance v. Stuart

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

On March 14, 1979: (a) appellant 20th Century Insurance Company was the insurer of respondent Dagmar Stuart under an automobile liability insurance policy; (b) Stuart and her mother, respondent Olga Auerbach, resided in the same household; (c) Stuart, while operating the automobile described in the insurance policy, collided with Auerbach while the latter was a pedestrian.

[372]

Auerbach sued Stuart for personal injuries. 20th Century undertook defense of Stuart concurrently seeking declaratory relief by motion for summary judgment that it was not bound to defend because the “family exclusion” in the Stuart policy effectively eliminated coverage in Stuart’s favor. Respondents answered asserting that the “family exclusion” clause upon which 20th Century relied was overly broad and therefore void as against public policy.

- The parties thereafter made several motions for summary judgment. The trial court determined the “family exclusion” provision herein relied upon by 20th Century was invalid. 20th Century appeals. We reverse.

The policy language in issue is as follows: “. . . (2) The unqualified word ‘insured’ includes (a) with respect to any automobile as hereinafter defined,

the named insured and his relatives, ...

“(6)

Relatives.

The unqualified word ‘relatives’ means,

while residents of the same household

as the named insured, his relatives . . .

“This policy does not apply ... 11. to bodily injury to the

insured or any member of the family

of the insured residing in the same household as the insured.” (Italics added.)

It is settled that, when properly drawn, exclusions of the kind here involved do not offerid public policy principles or constitutional considerations having to do with equal protection and are therefore valid against objections on those grounds. (See