Opinion ID: 1997757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: State Farm's Exclusion Inconsistent with Minimum Mandate

Text: In fact, the Universal decision reaffirmed the holding of Harris, in which this Court upheld the enforceability of a non-cooperation clause as customary in the underwriting of liability insurance [but] nonetheless recognized the viability of such an exclusion only to the extent it denied coverage beyond the statutory mandatory limits. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 669 A.2d at 48. [4] In holding that any exclusion was unenforceable as to the statutorily mandated liability coverage, this Court stated: The Delaware Financial Responsibility Law, 21 Del.C. ch. 29, requires all operators of motor vehicles within the State to secure certain insurance to protect and compensate all persons injured in automobile accidents. [Citation omitted.] Every Delaware motorist must procure both liability and no-fault insurance coverage. 21 Del.C. § 2118(a). Similarly, every insurance carrier must issue motor vehicle liability policies which include at least $15,000 of coverage per person to insure against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such motor vehicle. 21 Del.C. § 2902(b)(2). The insurer's liability is absolute to the extent of the statutory minimum regardless of whether the insured has violated any conditions or requirements contained within the policy. [Footnote omitted.] In the absence of express legislative authority, no policy exclusions affecting statutory minimum coverage will be recognized. Harris v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., Del.Supr., 632 A.2d 1380, 1381-82 (1993). Accordingly, in Universal, the Travelers properly acknowledged that its business exclusion could not apply to the minimum mandatory statutory limits of coverage.