Opinion ID: 1189703
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Named Insured Exclusion

Text: This court held in New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 104 Ariz. 544, 545, 456 P.2d 914, 915 (1969) that the exclusion as limited to the named insured himself is not contradictory to the provisions of A.R.S. § 28-1170, and it is not illegal or void. Thus, it is not invalid on its face. We hasten to add, however, that neither is it automatically enforceable. New York Underwriters, and its offspring, should only be read to mean that nothing in the statute or the public policy of this state is intended to restrict the privilege of an individual to contract with his insurance carrier to exclude his own personal recovery under the policy terms in the event of his own injury. 104 Ariz. at 545, 456 P.2d at 915. Whether an insured has actually done so depends on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Nor is the exclusion facially invalid under Darner because, as we said there, We have adopted a rule of law which, in proper circumstances, will relieve the insured from certain clauses of an agreement which he did not negotiate, probably did not read, and probably would not have understood had he read them. 140 Ariz. at 394, 682 P.2d at 399 (emphasis added). In Darner, we were critical of certain fictions relied on by the court in New York Underwriters. See Darner, 140 Ariz. at 388 n. 6, 682 P.2d at 393 n. 6. We did not, however, overrule the latter's pronouncements regarding the legal ability of parties to agree upon a named insured exclusion. Rather, we concluded that under appropriate circumstances courts must look beyond the boilerplate provisions of standardized insurance policies in determining the contractual rights and obligations of the parties.