Opinion ID: 1658184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is the owned-vehicle exclusion in these cases (a) ambiguous, (b) made clear, (c) a technical construction, and (d) contrary to the insured's reasonable expectations?

Text: III. If the owned-vehicle exclusion is invalid, should the insurer be liable for only the amount of residual liability coverage required by law, or for the amount provided for in the insurance contract? We would hold: I. The owned-automobile exclusion is not repugnant per se to the no-fault act, and that insurance policies may therefore exclude residual liability coverage for otherwise-insured resident family members when they drive vehicles owned by other resident family members and not described in the policy. II. In these cases, the insurers' method of exclusion  by the definition of terms at variance with their common meaning, which most policyholders would consider clear without definition  renders it invalid as (a) ambiguous, (b) not made clear, (c) a technical construction, and (d) contrary to the reasonable expectations of the insured reading the insurance contract.