Opinion ID: 1375765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: is the household exclusion clause in the pribbles' insurance policy contrary to public policy?

Text: The Pribbles argue that the household exclusion clause in their insurance policy is part of a ploy against the public which this court should prohibit. They ask this court to invalidate the household exclusion clause because [t]he legislative and executive branches    have failed to do so. This argument amounts to a claim that the household exclusion clause is contrary to public policy. Insurance policies are contracts. Those contracts may include whatever terms the parties want, so long as statutes or public policy are not violated. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Ins. Dept., 672 P.2d 810, 816 (Wyo. 1983). Wyoming statutes require every driver to have a minimum amount of liability insurance coverage. Wyo. Stat. § 31-4-103(a) (1994). Liability insurance policies must provide at least that much coverage, even for claims made by members of the insured's household. Allstate Ins. Co., 672 P.2d at 814-15. The Pribbles' insurance policy met this requirement of public policy. The household exclusion clause reduces liability coverage to the limits of liability required by law, but not below. Public policy may be found in case precedent as well as in statutes. The vast majority of cases    have held that household exclusions or analogous exclusions are enforceable with respect to policy amounts in excess of the statutory minimum   . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mastbaum, 748 P.2d 1042, 1043 (Utah 1987). Wyoming case precedent is against the Pribbles' argument. Wyoming recognizes that a policy containing a household exclusionary clause    is void to the extent of the minimum coverage contemplated by law, since the exclusion is in violation of    public policy   . Allstate Ins. Co., 672 P.2d at 823 (emphasis added). In other words, Allstate Ins. Co. establishes that household exclusionary clauses may reduce coverage to the statutory minimum. This court upheld a household exemption clause similar to the one here in Martin, 894 P.2d 618. We held that neither stated statutory public policy nor persuasive precedent afford us sufficient license to disregard the clear terms of the contract for insurance    where the household exclusion provides for the statutory minimum coverage. Id. at 621. We reaffirm our decision in Martin and hold that the household exclusion clause in the Pribbles' insurance policy does not violate public policy in Wyoming.