there is as a primary driver of her car and she also signs an endorsement a name driver exclusion excluding coverage if and when she herself drives in the courts have consistently up held and of course named driver exclusion except the appellate court in this case carved out an exception ruling that such exclusions are against public policy and void if the excluded driver is the sole named insured the mandatory insurance statute section seven there six zero one of the illinois vehicle code expressly allows policy defenses that were available at common law name driver exclusions were available at common law for both permissive drivers and car owners alike so under the mandatory insurance statute name driver exclusions are allowed the insurance card statute and regulation sections seven dash six zero two of the of the vehicle co allow would not require insurers to issue insurance cards specifically warning of excluded drivers if these exclusions were not allowed as for the public policy reasons the same public policy reasons of support allowing name driver exclusions for permissive drivers also apply to name driver exclusions of car owners and named in churchs these exclusions are needed so that families can get car insurance by excluding an unsafe from qualified member of the family who exclusion it was never the intention of the parties they had the named insured would be driving this car and as the dissent pointed out in the louisiana case relied upon by the appellate court it's really no difference if someone's going to decide to purpose of requiring insurance for all vehicles in the statute addresses insurance for vehicles not particular driver's license i don't know i think i'm the form doesn't it's show that the instead of the driver's license number is the presumption that the driver's this is like can is going to be driving it has the license number there instead of being excluded no i think by putting excluded there form would it be where you could make a notation that she'd be excluded there is a separate paper separate indorsement which is filled out in which she is which she signed saying that she's going to be ex right and there's a provision within the policy which says that was standing any thing else in this policy if there's a name driver exclusion indorsement the person listed on the excluded driver will not be covered when that person is operating the car i think it's about as clear as it can be to her that she's not going to be covered if she drives a car and it's clear that's why she didn't give her driver's license number i don't know why she didn't give her driver's license it may not be required if if she's  excluded driver i don't it doesn't show from the record i don't know why she was excluded i don't know if she had a number of tickets for reckless driving or or whatever but for whatever reason she was you how does that square with your well first of all i think the named the person named there and could be the person designated of the as the primary driver which would be mr because there isn't this case also i think the purpose of that statute was simply to ensure they had if you lend your car to someone they have your permission to use your car that that person will be covered just as if he or she was a named insured and so is they  i'm not sure if it's a big us but it has been interpreted to allow name driver it's lucian's of permissive drivers even though the statute expressly says that permissive drivers have to be covered we have to construe the statutes together seven dash six a the mandatory insurance statute which you mentioned was an x in the same time as seven dash six zero to the insurance car statute which specifically refers to excluded drivers so taking those two together i think it's clear that the legislature intended to continue with the practice that was allowed a common law of excluding specific drivers by name and if they knew the case then what about what is your contention with regard to section seven dash three one seven b two the all night safety and family financial responsibility law in how it conflicts with and start which section seven dash three one seven b two of the illinois safety and family financial responsibility it's contemplated that there will be some exclusions and various exclusions have been upheld as to named insurers and permissive drivers even though the statutes say the name insured and receive drivers have to be covered for instance this court has upheld the delivery exclusion in the progressive vs liberty mutual case saying well the exclusion would have applied whether it was the name insured or the promise of driver driving it's contemplated that there will be some exclusions to the insurance insurers but there were other people listed as drivers for instance in the case the policy at issue was issued to mrs dunny and her husband was listed as an excluded driver even though he was a co author of the vehicle that was listed as an insured vehicle and this court held that there was no coverage due to the name drive or exclusion even though he was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident and  adds when there when is here there is someone else designated in the policy as the primary driver of the of the vehicle to hold otherwise would effectively prohibit unmarried people who own cars but who for some reason are unable or unqualified to drive themselves from obtaining any insurance for their car or or contracts for their for their family may have an elderly lady who no longer passes the driving test to keep her driver's license but she may still want to use your car by having a relative or friend or neighbor drive her car the appellate court opinion this case would effectively prohibit her from doing that because she wouldn't be allowed to drive exclude herself from coverage even though it was never intended that she would drive that she had someone else who she could designate as her driver or if the statutes of most cover the named insured if you were viewed the few moments ago that the name insured could be someone who is designated as the driver could not the insurance company cover that if in fact named insured could be the primary driver as opposed to the owner well in this policy the primary driver is not that fall within the definition of the named insured the name insured i think of this policies says the first person listed on the declaration sheet but whether you call him a name insured or a primary driver i think it makes no difference the practical effect these parties contract intending that someone other than the named insured will be the driver of this vehicle and the insurer made insured will not be driving for whatever reason whether the person has too many test not sure that the named insured is defined by statute at one point in the statute seven desk six zero one it says the person named there in rather than the name  permissive users raise that will permissive user could use the car and be insured but the person who you enter into a policy with just because you have an exclusion doesn't mean that she isn't going to get in the car and drive so if she goes  's an accident and now there's no insurance you well they'll definitely be no insurance on that vehicle if you don't allow a named exclusion of the car owner in that situation because no one sure is going to insure that risk but if you allow a name to exist in of the in the car owner named insured in that instance then that car can be insured by excluding coverage only for that particular driver if their driver designates someone else for instance single mom may have a number of duis and the insurance company won't insure her but her teenage son and daughter may have driver's licenses and they may need their car to get to school or to get to the doctor get to the grocery store but they won't be have an exclusion for someone who has a single mom for four kids and four do you eyes and gets in the car and drives anyway what is it what the effect will be on the public you know if she hurts them they get no reimbursement their medical expenses then even if that's seems to me contrary to what the public policy should be that's a choice as no different from the spouse of named insured who is  uninsured motorist carriers and to extent that there are gaps between uninsured motorist coverage and liability coverage that's a matter for the legislature to address that's not for this court to address i see no differen in the public policy reasons that support name drive or exclusions for car owners permissive users who are not the sole named insured  and allowing them for car owners who are the sole name insured should it really turn on whether or not the name insured is married and always policy is named insured definition usually includes the spouse of the person that declaration sheet so most likely that if you were to look again at that policy in the dunny case most likely it would include mr donaghy as in the definition of a name to church because he was a spouse are we going to prohibit owners who are not married from obtaining car insurance as are required by statute seven six zero one or fires all car owners to obtain car insurance car liability insurance for their vehicles they can't do that if they're not able to find an insurer who is willing to issue a policy to them without excluding them from property if we agree if we would agree with your visit convert an owner's policy into an operator's policy and in the states it seems to distinguish between those two kind of policies first ones first of all is it converted into an owner operators oh no i don't think it does that the owners of one was required by statute to have a policy and there are specific coverages that apply to the named insured and the named insureds family are members of that name insurance household which wouldn't apply and that an operator's policy and no owners policy if the same driver of the single mom with the duis who can't find someone issue an owner's policy or to try to get coverage for other family members say by having getting a not ours policy for the two taint teenage kids those kids still wouldn't be covered when they die i've that mom's car because not ours policy typically would not cover a vehicle owned by a member of the household it's not listed on the policy it's provided for the regular use of the operator so there is no practical alternative the owner needs to get the policy as required by statute and that's the only way that everyone can ever in the family can get the coverage they need and it's not just liability coverage if if a single mom with the duis can't get car insurance for her car then her kids are covered she and her kids are not covered by uninsured motorist coverage what forms walking down the street gets clobbered they're not going to cover something that anyone needs in order to filling gaps like this and there's no real reason why these family should be excluded for instance seven dash three one seven b in describing owner's policy of liability insurance number one says it shall designate  motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby intended and then it goes on to say shall insured person named there and then any other person using or sponsible for the use of such motor vehicle again that section has been interpreted by on  courts to allow exclusions name driver exclusions just as tyson her opinion in the same parking is listed a number of public policy reasons why that should be allowed and those same public policy reasons would apply in this case this particular case there was a an alternative primary driver listed and i think in those cases there is no public ask that you reverse the appellate court judgement affirm the trial court judgment and rule that a name driver exclusion of the sole name insured where is here a primary someone else's name as a primary driver is not against public policy and is not void thank you thank you court's decision reversed in the trial court's decision and find that the exclusion in this case is invalid as it is invalid as to public policy first justice car meyer you would indicated the question in any of the other cases were there other named insures that were cited by apple we and yes in all of them there were in most of them the name excluded driver were either the sun the or the spouse and there was always the old one of the owners receive the policy or after they are sick or if they're incapacitated and cannot drive prior to receiving the policy first of all it is likely they did not have a valid driver's license that is covered by as this court ruling founders versus  incapacitated owner who does have a valid driver's license if this individual case can't obtain an insurance policy one of the people who is driving the car can obtain a non owner's insurance policy they can still be insured to drive that vehicle additionally is this court is held and reason driving is a privilege and not a right if somebody is unable to drive due to its but still has the rice and is due to multiple elations for incapacity that is for that's for the legislature to determine whether they should be allowed to drive and should be allowed to be excluded it's not for the score to make that determination as the court itself argued them well if they are if we're going to the hypothetical incapacitated and cannot drive but do have a valid driver's license right they wouldn't be excluded on the policy they cannot drive their car they can be covered on the policy for example if they become incapacitated after the policy is an act that they would be a cover driver and anybody driving the car that they don't need to be excluded if they're only able to drive their car there wouldn't be a situation contemplated by the insurance company of the time or somebody who cannot drive a car would be driving a car and causing an accident therefore there would be no reason to exclude them as a named insured on the policy mr wright what is your response to the contention that this insurance who vision conflicts i'm sorry that the situation that the party entered into a private contract which excluded the name insured for coverage why should the court intervene and essentially rewrite private contract your honor the court can intervene and we re the private contractor if it is in conflict with the public policy the state of illinois and this one is clearly in conflict with the statutes of two six zero one and two three seventeen b two so therefore yes the court should sparingly use its powers to void contracts but in this case it isn't violation of the public policy and as the appellate court itself noted they would use this the big now is that they should use this sparingly but in this case excluding the only named insured driver the owner of the vehicle that apple can to the vehicle the person paying for the policy  who is then the power see for that is the person who is named paying for the power owns the vehicle that is the person who should be covered by this policy and that is the person that's contemplated by the statutes to six zero one and two any driver who is driving with the owner's permission can be excluded it's not just any driver effect six o two goes on to say that the owner if they are driving a different vehicle it policy and therefore that exclusion is in violation of public policy and this court should strike down that exclusion additionally a pound has been arguing that zahra is the primary insured on the vehicle however or even in their early briefs they have acknowledged that he was never issued an insurance this policy was an act that i believe on him you can't read them all that he's not receiving insurance currently is an unnamed insured yet the policy is for his overage if he needed coverage she could get again the non owner insurance policy this construed to bar name driver exclusions where the common law to that do so nothing in the common law says name driver exclusions can only be applied to permissive drivers or drivers doesn't limit the identity of the person says only that the insurance card shell designate or warn of excluded drivers how on earth you need to be able to purchase car insurance not only because it's required by statute but also because the car owner or their family may need to use that car it makes more sense to tell that the name insured the car owner up front i'm making them sign the name driver exclusion you are not can be covered if you drive this car then trying to hide it somewhere in the policy by saying well they're already excluded under the reasonable belief exclusion if they don't have a drivers license why can't we tell them upfront that you're not licensed you're not going be covered you should not be driving this car that is more in fitting with illinois public policy that will keep these unlicensed or on qualified drivers or on safe drivers off the road insurance for their vehicle liability insurance for their vehicle the only way for some interim somehow owners to do that is to exclude themselves from coverage and i submit that a ruling that would allow name driver exclusions of named insur and car owners where is here someone else is named in the policy as the primary driver comports with illinois public policy and the should be allowed therefore i am asked that you