Opinion ID: 2616603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Looney Unresolved

Text: The teachings of Looney, [62] which upheld both the household and named insured exclusions as not repugnant to the Financial Responsibility Act, cannot be ignored. There, we concluded that the Act was not relevant to a determination of the validity of policy exclusions. [63] Nina Looney was denied coverage because two valid policy exclusions applied to her: a household exclusion clause and an exclusion of the named insured. [64] Looney is not distinguishable from the situation at bar. The court acknowledged there that the policy provisions applied in the disjunctive, not in the conjunctive. The claimant would have been denied coverage if only one of these exclusionary clauses was applicable. Because both clauses applied and we concluded that both were valid, we did not determine which was effective to deny coverage. [65]