Opinion ID: 1375765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: is the household exclusion clause in the pribbles' insurance policy vague and ambiguous?

Text: The Pribbles argue that their insurance policy is ambiguous because the household exclusion language is difficult to understand because it refers to the limits of liability required by law and because the exclusion does not appear on the Declarations Page. The district court held that the insurance policy is unambiguous, and we agree with the district court's determination. The issue of ambiguity from a household exclusion question was largely decided in Martin, 894 P.2d 618. In Martin, we found language similar to the first portion of the exclusion here to be unambiguous. The Martins had an unambiguous contract with Farmers and cannot reasonably expect benefits in excess of the clear terms of that contract. Id. at 622. In Martin, we described the contract terms as clear, and find them to be just as clear in the instant case. Id. at 621. Ambiguity exists where a contract `is obscure in its meaning because of indefiniteness of expression or because it contains a double meaning.' Id. at 620 ( quoting Ferguson v. Reed, 822 P.2d 1287, 1289 (Wyo.1991)). A contract is unambiguous if it can be read with only one interpretation. Martin, 894 P.2d at 620. The household exclusion language in the Pribbles' insurance policy is not indefinite, and supports only one interpretation. The household exclusion language clearly states: There is no coverage    [f]or any bodily injury to    any insured or any member of an insured's household to the extent the limits of liability of this policy exceed the limits of liability required by law. (Emphasis in original.) This language is clear. The Pribbles do not and cannot offer any logical meaning for this language other than that presented by State Farm. The insurance policy clearly does not cover bodily injury to a member of an insured's household to a certain extent. The Pribbles argue that the second part of the exclusionto the extent the limits of liability of this policy exceed the limits of liability required by lawis ambiguous because it does not appear on the Declarations Page. We rejected that argument in Martin, and do so again. In Martin, we approved an exclusion which did not appear on the declarations page, and found that all parts of the insurance contract require each other for complete meaning. Martin, 894 P.2d at 621. The same is true here. The Pribbles' Declarations Page clearly indicates that the policy booklet and the Declarations Page are both part of the insurance contract. The Declarations Page obviously does not include the terms and conditions of the policy booklet. The location of the household exclusion in the policy booklet does not create any potential double meaning or ambiguity. The Pribbles point out that the second portion of the household exclusion in their insurance policy is not identical to that in Martin. The Martin exclusion restricted insurance coverage `in excess of the minimum limits of the Wyoming Financial Responsibility Law.' Id. at 619. The Pribbles' insurance policy excludes insurance coverage for claims of household members to the extent the limits of liability of this policy exceed the limits of liability required by law. The Pribbles also claim that the second portion of the exclusion is vague and indefinite because it does not specifically indicate what limits of liability are referred to. We disagree. The term limits of liability is used in the Declarations Page to indicate the extent of insurance coverage. That same specific meaning applies to the household exclusion clause. In other words, in the context of the whole insurance policy, the term limits of liability required by law means extent of insurance coverage required by law. The exclusionary language in the Pribbles' insurance policy, while more general than the terminology in Martin, is not vague or indefinite. In Wyoming, the limits of liability required by law are established by Wyo. Stat. §§ 31-9-101 through 31-9-414 (1994). [2] The Pribbles do not suggest that there is some other minimum liability coverage required by law. As in Martin, only one logical interpretation of this exclusionary language exists, making the language unambiguous. Martin, 894 P.2d at 620. The Pribbles also claim that their insurance coverage must be ascertainable by reference to the policy documents alone, and without reference to anything outside the policy. They cite Leibrand v. National Farmers Union Property and Cas. Co., 272 Mont. 1, 898 P.2d 1220, 1223 (1995) as support for this proposition and suggest that contract language is void if it requires information from a library or expert for complete understanding. It is a common and necessary practice, however, for contracts to refer to and obtain meaning from other documents. A contract may refer elsewhere for full understanding of its terms, just as it may adopt another document by reference. 17A Am.Jur.2d, Contracts § 400 (1991). The Pribbles' household exclusion clause is not ambiguous simply because one must refer to the laws of Wyoming for a complete understanding of the extent of that exclusion. The Pribbles ask this court to hold the household exclusion clause void, without any meaning. Each provision of a contract is presumed to have a purpose. We must avoid construing a contract so as to render one of its provisions meaningless   . Moncrief v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 861 P.2d 516, 524 (Wyo.1993). We cannot conclude that this household exclusion clause is meaningless. The household exclusion clause in the Pribbles' insurance policy is not ambiguous. It is not indefinite and supports only one logical interpretation. It limits coverage for claims by household members to $25,000.00.