Opinion ID: 883630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: summary of positions

Text: When discussed collectively, the Leibrands and the Coles will hereafter be referred to as insureds. National Farmers Union Property and Casualty and Truck Insurance Exchange will be referred to as insurers. The insureds contend that the language in both policies which limits coverage for claims made by household members to the limits of liability required by law, rather than the liability limits provided for on their declaration pages, is void and unenforceable because (1) the language is unclear and ambiguous; (2) given the effect claimed by the insurers, the provisions would violate their reasonable expectations; and (3) limiting coverage for claims by household members, as opposed to other persons injured by an insured, violates the public policy of this state. The insurers contend that (1) the language of the policy is not unclear because all Montana drivers are charged with the responsibility of knowing the limits of liability coverage they are required to carry by law; (2) any expectations contrary to the plain language of the policy were not reasonable; and (3) the public policy of this state is as set forth in Montana's mandatory liability protection statutes which only require that insurance policies provide coverage to household claimants in the minimum amount provided by statute. Since we conclude that the provisions in question are unclear and ambiguous, we decline to reach the issues of whether the provisions would violate the insureds' reasonable expectations, or are void because contrary to the public policy of this state.