Court Opinion

ID: 9659639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:51:17.791053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:10.259921
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
The effect of the majority opinion is to declare void any endorsement to an insurance policy that makes any change of substance in the policy if the form of the endorsement has not been approved by the Department of Insurance under section 44-348, R. R. S. 1943. I do not agree that this is a correct statement of the law.
It has long been the rule that parties may contract for any lawful insurance coverage. An insurer may limit its liability and impose restrictions and conditions upon its contractual obligations not inconsistent with public policy or statute. Mills v. Aetna Ins. Co., 168 Neb. 612, 96 N. W. 2d 721. Public policy is a matter of law, not fact, and the findings of the trial court on such an issue are not controlling.
The parties, stipulated that the endorsement in question in this case was delivered to the plaintiff and signed *30by her on or about July 31, 1968. The following appears above her signature on the endorsement: “In consideration of the reduced premium the named insured accepts this endorsement as witness his signature: and has read and understands the contents thereof and consents to the limitation of the policy.”
An omnibus clause is not a standard provision or statutory clause in an automobile liability insurance policy in Nebraska and there is no public policy that requires it be included in such policies. It is clear the Legislature has limited the statutory requirement to a policy certified under the Financial Responsibility Act. See §§ 60-533 and 60-534, R. R. S. 1943. The policy involved in this case was not certified.
The purpose of the requirement that policy forms be filed and approved is to protect' the public from clauses which mislead, deceive, or unreasonably deny coverage granted in general provisions. A failure to comply with such a statute may result in the insurer being subject to a penalty, but the policy is not void. See, Progressive Mutual Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 35 Mich. App. 633, 193 N. W. 2d 54; Graf v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., 190 Iowa 445, 180 N. W. 297; Walters v. Western Automobile Ins. Co., 116 Kan. 404, 226 P. 746; Southern Casualty Co., v. Hughes, 33 Ariz. 206, 263 P. 584; Hall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 146 Ore. 32, 28 P. 2d 875.
White, C. J., joins in this dissent.