Opinion ID: 1572709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Family Exclusion Provision.

Text: The United policy provided: We do not provide Liability Coverage for any person for bodily injury to you or any family member. Family member is defined as: A person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household. This includes a ward or foster child. Roger Victoria, who was the son of the insured, was the driver of the Victoria car. His father, Victor, was injured, and Mabel, his mother, was killed. If the family exclusion is enforceable, all family members would be precluded from recovery under the family exclusion. We have upheld a similar family exclusion in an automobile liability policy, Walker v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 340 N.W.2d 599, 601-03 (Iowa 1983), and under a homeowners policy, Principal Cas. Ins. Co. v. Blair, 500 N.W.2d 67, 69 (Iowa 1993). The Victorias contend that, because Mabel and Victor were residents of Colorado at the time of the accident, any policy written by United must conform to Colorado law, which they say does not permit such exclusions. The district court agreed and ruled that United must reform the policy to delete the family exclusion. We need not pass on two preliminary questions raised by United in connection with this issue: (1) the Victorias failed to request novation; and (2) an insured is not automatically entitled to a reformed policy when moving to another state. Instead, we decide the issue on the basis that the Victorias failed to prove that Colorado law would prohibit such an exclusion, although some of the witnesses suggested that might be so. The rule is that, when foreign law is not pled or proven, it is presumed to be the same as Iowa's. Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 131 (Iowa 1983). Under Iowa law, as shown by the cases cited above, such an exclusion is valid. We conclude that the court erred in ordering reformation or novation of the insurance policy to remove the family exclusion, and we therefore reverse on that issue. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.