Opinion ID: 2616603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Immunity And Contractual Exclusion

Text: At common law the rule of parental immunity prevented unemancipated minors from suing their parents for ordinary negligence. Although this rule is grounded on valid principles, the modern trend has been to abolish or abridge the parental immunity doctrine. [5] One reason for the bar of intrafamily claims is that lawsuits by children against their parents were believed to disrupt family congeniality. [6] This rationale has been widely criticized and is often not relevant where third-party insurance companies pay the cost of the judgment. [7] Indeed, many courts take the view that when a third party pays damages to the injured family member; the lawsuit relieves, rather than increases, stress within the family circle. [8] Another reason for intrafamily immunity is the potential for fraudulent and collusive claims where a third-party insurance company may be liable for the judgment. [9] It is possible for insured parties to feign injuries or fraudulently attribute them to automobile related mishaps when in fact they were caused by other events. Many jurisdictions deem it unnecessary to bar suits on legal immunity grounds because intrafamilial fraud is believed to be discoverable and preventable on proper investigation. [10] Although in vehicular negligence cased intrafamily immunity (to the extent of a parent's automobile liability insurance) has previously been eroded, [11] today's judgment could be misinterpreted as going well beyond this court's extant jurisprudence [12] and beyond legislative mandate [13]  by forbidding neutrality through contractual agreements. This is not my view of today's per curiam disposition which stands narrowly limited to the facts. Insurance liability contracts typically contain standard clauses which deny coverage to members of the insured's household. Insurers argue these household exclusions protect them from fraudulent and collusive lawsuits, the cost of which would be passed along to other policyholders. While many jurisdictions dismiss these concerns as invalid, the insurer should be allowed to restrict coverage based upon its experience, irrespective of how insubstantial courts [14] may consider these business concerns to be, so long as the limitations do not run afoul of clear policy of the law.