Opinion ID: 149987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: furnished or available for your regular use.

Text: 3. Any vehicle, other than “your covered auto”, which is: a. owned by a “family member”; or b. furnished or available for the regular use of a “family member”. However, this exclusion (B.3.) does not apply to your maintenance or use of any vehicle which is: -2- a. owned by a “family member”; or b. furnished or available for the regular use of a “family member”. Aplt. App. at 62, 98 (emphasis added). According to Travelers, exclusion B.2 precludes coverage for any vehicle, other than “your covered auto,” which is “owned by you” or “furnished or available for your regular use.” Since (1) the Elantra is not listed in the declarations, see id. at 39, 74, it is not a covered auto, see id. at 60, 96 (defining “[y]our covered auto” as “[a]ny vehicle shown in the Declarations”); and (2) because Matthew’s father—a named insured—owned the car, see id. at 37 (listing title owners as “LAURA CANNON [Matthew’s sister] OR CHRISTOPHER CANNON [Matthew’s father]”), Travelers contends exclusion B.2 applies. The Krehbiels point out, however, that Matthew’s mother, who also is a named insured, does not own the Elantra. Because she is not an owner, the Krehbiels assert, she is not subject to the exclusion and coverage therefore extends equally to her son Matthew. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of Travelers. The court recognized the dispositive issue was whether the terms “you” and “your” refer to Matthew’s parents collectively or apply to each individually; if collectively, the phrase “owned by you” includes them both and there was no coverage. But if “you” and “your” refer to Matthew’s parents individually, then presumably only Matthew’s father was excluded. Looking to -3- the policy definitions, the court saw that “you” and “your” refer to “1. [t]he ‘named insured’ shown in the Declarations; and 2. [t]he spouse if a resident of the same household.” Id. at 60, 96 (emphasis added). Because Matthew’s parents were named insureds and resident spouses, the court ruled they collectively satisfied the definition of “you” and “your.” And applying that meaning to the policy exclusion, the court concluded that Matthew’s parents were both excluded from coverage. Hence, the court rejected the Krehbiels’ contention that “you” and “your” referred to Matthew’s parents individually, explaining that the definitions unambiguously include all named insureds and all resident spouses.