Opinion ID: 2616603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: by state farm's declaration, the liability coverage for $25,000.00 per person in each of george's two policies is written in accordance with the compulsory insurance law; the household exclusion clause is contrary to the compulsory insurance law; hence, the household exclusion clause is invalid as to the policy limits of liability coverage; and, state farm is liable to the estate of jeffrey george, deceased, for an amount up to $50,000.00.

Text: In George's policies, the same comprehensive language insuring the operators of Morgan's Oldsmobile insures George's permissive use of a non-owned automobile and the same obscure language excludes household members from the liability coverage. Because the policies expressly provide that the definition of insured does not apply to the use of a non-owned automobile, it cannot be used to interpret the ambiguity. But as already said, the definition of reside refers to the household of the named insured, George's household, [5] so that under the terms of George's policies, injury to Jeffrey George, the passenger/minor child of George, would be within the household exclusion. Without expressing its legal rationale, today's per curiam opinion holds that the household exclusion clause is contrary to §§ 7-600, et seq. of Title 47 and invalid as to the first $10,000.00 of liability coverage, the minimum coverage required by §§ 7-600, et seq. However, same as the endorsement attached to Morgan's policy, State Farm's endorsement attached to each of George's policies expressly states that the liability coverage for which the premium has been paid is provided in accordance with Oklahoma's compulsory insurance law. That is, under the plain, ordinary and clear terms of the policies, State Farm agrees that Coverage A for which the premium has been paid for a $25,000.00 limit per person coverage in each of the two policies is governed by the compulsory insurance law. Notwithstanding State Farm's endorsement otherwise, the Court's holding fictionalizes two liability policies for each of the policies involved, and every motor vehicle liability insurance contract issued in Oklahoma in an amount of coverage greater than $10,000.00: 1) liability coverage for $10,000.00, which is subject to the compulsory insurance law; and, 2) excess or additional liability coverage for any amount of the policy limits which exceed $10,000.00, which is not subject to the compulsory insurance law. This fiction is not supported by the compulsory insurance statutes. Our compulsory insurance statutes were originally enacted in 1976. [6] In 1982, § 7-600.1 was added to the compulsory insurance laws. [7] It authorizes excess or additional liability coverage to be included in an insurance policy which provides compulsory insurance, as follows: Section 2. Statement or endorsement to be included in policies  Excess or additional coverage  Binders. A. The following statement or endorsement shall be included in owner's policies and operator's policies except certified policies issued pursuant to Section 7-324 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes: Liability insurance is provided in this policy in accordance with coverage required by the Compulsory Insurance Law of Oklahoma. B. Excess or additional coverage. A policy may also grant any lawful coverage in excess or in addition to the coverage specified for policies defined by Section 1 of this act [§ 7-600, Definitions] and such excess or additional coverage shall not be subject to the provisions of the Compulsory Insurance Law. C. Binders, Any binder issued pending the issuance of a policy shall be deemed to fulfill the requirements for such a policy. Subsection B, without ambiguity, provides that an insured and insurer may agree to the inclusion of other liability coverage in the same contract that provides the compulsory liability insurance and that the other liability insurance will not be subject to compulsory insurance law. That is, excess or additional liability coverage, like medical payments and uninsured motorist coverage, may be included in an insurance policy providing compulsory insurance and the excess coverage will not be subject to the compulsory insurance statutes. Any other reading would render the phrase may also grant useless. [8] The Court's holding implicitly rewrites § 7-600.1 to say  A policy may provide coverage with limits in excess or in addition to the minimum coverage specified for policies defined by Section 1 of this act and such excess or additional coverage shall not be subject to the provisions of the Compulsory Insurance Law. The Legislature could have provided that the compulsory insurance laws are not applicable to that part of the liability coverage which exceeds the minimum amount required. But it did not. The statute plainly says that excess or additional coverage may be granted which shall not be subject to the compulsory insurance law. Further, as to an owner's policy and the liability coverage therein which follows the automobile, the Court's holding confuses primary and excess liability coverage. [9] As I read § 7-600.1, it would permit an insured to buy and an insurer to sell two separate liability coverages as perceived by the per curiam opinion, but that is not the agreement contained in the policies before the Court. As set out above, State Farm endorsed the liability coverages to be in accordance with the compulsory insurance law with the monetary limits for which the premiums were paid. Accordingly, I cannot join in today's per curiam holding which invalidates the household exclusion clauses in the involved policies as to the minimum $10,000.00 coverage mandated by our compulsory insurance law only. III.