Opinion ID: 1369036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Effects of the Policy Provisions

Text: Aetna's construction of the policy, approved by the lower courts, has some strange and probably unexpected results. For instance, though Tina and Shawn presumably wished coextensive coverage when they purchased the policy, they somehow wound up receiving a lesser class of coverage for Tina. Because Tina and Shawn were no longer living in the same household at the time of the accident, Tina was not covered for benefits to which Shawn would have been entitled. Although Tina and Shawn were paying to insure two cars and two drivers, a portion of Tina's uninsured motorist coverage was dependent on where she was living. In addition, Aetna acknowledged that when Shawn moved back to his parents' house, his parents and any siblings living in the same household may have become family members under the policy and thus would have been fully insured by Aetna to the same extent as Shawn. [5] The result: Shawn's brother and sister, but not his wife and child, might have been covered. We turn, then, to Tina's first contention. She argues that the policy provisions limiting her uninsured motorist coverage are unenforceable under the Darner case.