Opinion ID: 2581315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the insured person exclusion in mid-century's policy

Text: ¶ 6 The Mid-Century policy here under review provides in pertinent part: PART I  LIABILITY Coverage A  Bodily Injury Coverage B  Property Damage We will pay damages for which any insured person is legally liable because of bodily injury to any person and property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a private passenger car, a utility car, or a utility trailer. (emphasis in original denoting defined terms)       Exclusions This coverage does not apply to:       11.a. Liability for bodily injury to an insured person. (emphasis in original denoting defined terms) ¶ 7 The policy defines an insured person  for purposes of both the liability coverage and exclusionary clause provisions  as (1) the named insured listed on the declarations page, (2) that person's spouse if a resident of the same household, and (3) relatives of either residing in the same household. [5] ¶ 8 Mid-Century argues the quoted policy exclusion relieves it of liability to Glinda. This is so because she falls within the excluded class as a named insured on the declarations page of the policy. The insurer contends that this court's pronouncement in Looney, which affirmed the validity of an exclusionary provision barring recovery by a named insured, compels today a decision in its favor. Glinda, on the other hand, contends that Looney is no longer the controlling authority on the validity of named insured/household exclusionary clauses, having been supplanted by this court's more recent pronouncement in Nation. The latter decision, she urges, teaches that named insured/household exclusionary clauses are void as contrary to the public policy that underlies compulsory liability insurance.