Opinion ID: 2616603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Fragile Underpinnings Of Broad Invalidation

Text: Based upon an expansive view of previously unarticulated public policy, some justices would press for a broad invalidation of household exclusion clauses. The Act  presumably the source for their perceived public policy mandate  expressly allows exclusions by agreement. [66] The legislature contemplates that some policy provisions are compatible with the Financial Responsibility Act, despite their effect of excluding certain individuals from coverage. [67] The Act provides that others may be excluded from coverage by policy provisions, thus enabling individual insureds to keep their insurance rates at an acceptable level. Persons are not required to insure themselves or others they choose to exclude by name in the policy. [68] All these choices are allowed by the express language of the Act. [69] The household exclusion clause does what the insured could have done with the blessing of the legislature  exclude specific individuals (e.g., household members) from coverage. [70] The blanket invalidation approach pressed by some justices fails to distinguish between permissible and impermissible exclusions. The legislature has authorized some exclusions as valid. [71] The court has stated previously that some exclusions are invalid. [72] Freedom of contract can be restricted only in the name of articulated public policy. [73] It is important to strike a balance between the competing interests of freedom of contract and the legislatively declared imperative of protection for the public. I agree that public policy controls over restrictive contractual provisions that give less protection than the law commands. But since the Act Expressly contemplates  if not authorizes  liability exclusions by contract, it is improper to ignore the specific in favor of the more general provisions in the Act. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schwartz , a recent federal case, affords no support for the broad invalidation argument. [74] There, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit noted that Oklahoma law was unsettled on the validity of household exclusion clauses when gauged by our compulsory insurance law. Nevertheless, the federal court concluded such clauses violated public policy. By rejecting the clear teachings of Looney as non-binding dictum [75] while embracing the general sentiment from Unah v. Martin, [76] the federal court stopped short of giving full effect to Oklahoma's extant compulsory insurance jurisprudence. Federal courts must follow settled state law rather than speculate on its uncertain course. [77] Because Schwartz lacks support in our precedent, little guidance can be gleaned from that decision.