Opinion ID: 2218953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: California Considerations

Text: The most recent pronouncement on the subject by California's highest court is found in Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cocking, 29 Cal.3d 383, 173 Cal.Rptr. 846, 628 P.2d 1 (1981), in which the California Supreme Court was called upon to resolve a constitutional challenge to § 11580.1(c) of the code. The court held the denial of a claim specifically falling within the express exclusion of § 11580.1(c)(5) to be insulated from attack on general public policy grounds because the California Legislature expressly authorized such. The California Legislature declared in Cal.Ins.Code § 11580.05 (West 1988) that ` this article expresses the total public policy of this state respecting the contents of [automobile liability insurance] policies ....' (Emphasis in original.) Cocking, 29 Cal.3d at 388, 628 P.2d at 3, 173 Cal.Rptr. at 848. Moreover, the Cocking court upheld § 11580.1(c)(5) as constitutional in the face of an equal protection challenge, writing: [T]he Legislature has merely excluded one class from mandatory liability coverage, consistent with a preexisting judicial rule, founded upon freedom of contract and the insurer's legitimate interest in minimizing future losses attributable to fraud or collusion. Cocking, 29 Cal.3d at 390, 628 P.2d at 4, 173 Cal.Rptr. at 849. See, also, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ammar, 126 Cal.App.3d 837, 179 Cal.Rptr. 146 (1981); 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 129 Cal. App.3d 370, 181 Cal.Rptr. 61 (1982). The owner's estate misplaces reliance on State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 109 Cal.App.3d 575, 167 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1980), in which the court held that § 11580.1 of the code and its authorization of family exclusion clauses exceeded rational bounds and was invalid as violative of equal protection. A hearing before the California Supreme Court on Smith was sought prior to the Cocking decision. See Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta, 118 Cal. App.3d 985, 173 Cal.Rptr. 852 (1981), vacated 30 Cal.3d 800, 640 P.2d 764, 180 Cal. Rptr. 628 (1982). However, according to Westlaw Insta-Cite, on July 22, 1981, approximately 2 months after the supreme court handed down Cocking, it retransferred Smith to the court of appeal. The opinion on retransfer was not published. Therefore, the Smith holding is of no value in determining the issue before us. Since the language of the exclusion in question marches in step with the words of the California Legislature and has not been found to suffer any constitutional infirmity, it is not violative of California public policy.