Opinion ID: 2586252
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nelson's interpretation is unreasonable.

Text: Nelson might still prevail despite our conclusion that this policy is not ambiguous, for we need not find that an ambiguity exists to construe the policy under the reasonable expectations doctrine. [40] This implicates her second argument: that the last clause of the final sentence of the exclusion excludes only vicarious liability, not negligent entrustment claims, and limits the scope of the exclusion. And because an insurance policy is a contract of adhesion, we construe it to give effect to the insured's reasonable expectations. [41] Thus the objectively reasonable expectations of applicants and intended beneficiaries regarding the terms of insurance contracts will be honored even though painstaking study of the policy provisions would have negated those expectations. [42] We discern reasonable expectations from the language of the disputed provisions, other provisions, and relevant extrinsic evidence. . . .  [43] But Nelson's claim is supported by none of these sources. As to the language of the disputed provision, Nelson argues that vicariously liable modifies youand thus that an insured is able to take advantage of the exclusion only if his or her liability is vicarious, a grammatically tortured reading of the provision. Both the placement and language choice indicate that the provision is broad in excluding coverage: excluded under this provision are the insured, relatives of the insured, and persons or organizations vicariously liable for the accident. Any other interpretation of the exclusion would strain credulity and defy reasonable expectations. [44] As to other provisions, there are no other provisions in the contract that support this interpretation. Finally, as to extrinsic evidence, Nelson provides no evidence supporting the Uliseses' belief that they would be covered, other than her own assertion. On the contrary, the record reflects that the Uliseses elected to remove Siuleo from the policy at two different times. In 2000 the Uliseses listed three members of their household as excluded drivers. The auto policy premium was $1,427. In February 2001 Lilii added Siuleo to the policy, and the premium increased to $3,859. In March 2001 Siuleo was again removed from the policy, and the policy premiums returned to $1,427. Given the repeated fluctuations in policy premiums and corresponding financial savings in exchange for the exclusions, [45] Nelson has failed to show that the Uliseses maintained a reasonable expectation of coverage for injuries resulting from Siuleo's operation of the vehicle.