Opinion ID: 2425072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Andrew Shahan's Appeal

Text: The $1,000,000 umbrella liability policy State Farm issued to the Hunolts contained the following exclusion: We will not provide insurance: .... for personal injury to ... anyone within the meaning of part a. or b. of the definition of insured. `[I]nsured' means: a. the named insured; the following residents of the named insured's household: (1) the named insured's relatives; and (2) anyone under the age of 21 under the care of a person named above. Both Leo and Nancy Hunolt were named insureds on the policy. Andrew does not dispute that he was both a relative of and in the care of a named insured while residing in the named insured's household. Andrew, therefore, is an insured under the umbrella liability policy. As such, Andrew is precluded from recovering under the policy. Andrew asserts, nevertheless, that the household exclusion does not preclude him from recovering under the policy. In support of his assertion, Andrew relies on theories related to estoppel, waiver, and res judicata. Since there was no previous claim or denial of coverage under the umbrella liability policy, none of these theories applies. The trial court properly determined that Andrew Shahan could not garnish the proceeds of the umbrella liability policy.