Opinion ID: 1826994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: family exclusion endorsement

Text: Initially, we determine the effect of Continental Western's endorsement PP 03 26, commonly known as a household exclusion endorsement. The Amicks' Select Personal Auto Policy with Continental Western, in Part A Liability Coverage, stated in relevant part: We will pay damages for `bodily injury' or `property damage' for which any `insured' becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident. Insured is defined by the policy as [a]ny person using `your covered auto.' It is undisputed that Christopher Welsh was driving one of the Amicks' covered automobiles, that he was driving it with Michael Amick's permission, and that Christopher Welsh was an insured under the policy. However, the liability coverage provided the Amicks by Continental Western at the time of the accident was subject to exclusion endorsement PP 03 26. That endorsement stated: We do not provide Liability Coverage for any person for bodily injury to you or any family member. According to the unambiguous terms of endorsement PP 03 26, Continental Western did not provide liability coverage for bodily injury to Michael Amick, since he was an Amick family member. The appellees argue that the endorsement is inconsistent with both public policy and the legislative will as contained in § 60-534. Section 60-534 states: [A motor vehicle liability policy certified as proof of financial responsibility:] (1) Shall designate by explicit description... all motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby to be granted; and (2) shall insure the person named therein and any other person, as insured, using any such motor vehicle ... with the express or implied permission of such named insured, against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ... use of such motor vehicle.... Today, this court decided the validity of the household exclusion in Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 243 Neb. 779, 502 N.W.2d 484 (1993), and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hildebrand, 243 Neb. 743, 502 N.W.2d 469 (1993). In those cases, we noted that § 60-534 is part of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 60-501 et seq. (Reissue 1988) (providing in § 60-507 for suspension of the motor vehicle operator's license of any operator involved in an accident in Nebraska which results in bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, if the operator does not have motor vehicle liability insurance or other proof of financial responsibility at the time of the accident, and continuing until the operator provides proof of future financial responsibility). In Allied Mut. Ins. Co., the court held that the definition of financial responsibility, used in § 60-501(10), applies only to policies used as proof of financial responsibility specifically required for compliance with the Nebraska Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. In all other situations, [t]he parties to an insurance contract may contract for any lawful coverage, and the insurer may limit its liability and impose restrictions and conditions upon its obligation under the contract not inconsistent with public policy or statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 233 Neb. 248, 252, 444 N.W.2d 676, 679 (1989). Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 243 Neb. at 783, 502 N.W.2d at 484. Therefore, a household exclusion clause contained in a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance that is not used as proof of future financial responsibility under the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act does not violate public policy of the State of Nebraska and is an enforceable provision in a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hildebrand, 243 Neb. at 749, 502 N.W.2d at 472. Accord Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra . The Amicks' Continental Western liability insurance was not a policy used as proof of financial responsibility as defined by the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. Consequently, endorsement PP 03 26 violates neither public policy nor § 60-534, and coverage for Michael Amick's injuries is expressly excluded by the terms of the Continental Western policy. We reverse the judgment of the district court finding that the Continental Western policy provided coverage for Michael's injuries. In view of the foregoing holding, we need not reach Continental Western's assigned error appealing the overruling of its motion for new trial.