Court Opinion

ID: 9675840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:07:12.731921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:39.690177
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I have no dispute with the Court’s broad holding that household exclusion clauses in automobile insurance contracts that prohibit children from recovering from their parents now violate public policy. I fully agree that with the abolition of the common law doctrine of parental immunity by this Court on December 17,1991, Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852, (Mo. banc 1991) and Armstrong v. Armstrong, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1991), the Financial Responsibility Act, Sections 303.010-.370, RSMo 1986, mandates coverage for children in automobile insurance contracts.
But this case is about a single contract and an accident both of which substantially predate this Court’s decision in Hartman. This case seeks a declaration by the Halpin parents as next friends of the Halpin children that (1) the injuries caused the children by the mother’s negligence (so the pleading states in an apparent attempt to admit liability) are not subject to the household exclusion clause of the insurance contract because that clause violates public policy; (2) that “each minor Plaintiff may recover for personal injuries up to $50,000 each”; and (3) that the court determine the damages sustained by each Halpin child. The trial court ruled in favor of American Family, holding quite correctly that until parental immunity was dissolved American Family’s contract provided no coverage for the claim of the Halpin children.
When American Family and the Halpins entered this contract and at the time of the accident at issue here, Missouri law forbad the Halpin children from seeking a recovery from the Halpin parents. It matters not that the legislature had passed the Financial Responsibility Act. That act requires a driver to maintain proof of financial responsibility. Section 303.160. Proof of financial responsibility means “proof of the ability to respond in damages for Ha-*485bility_” Section 303.020(10). A person is liable if he or she “is bound or obligated according to law.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1302 (1976). Under this Court’s decisions adopting and upholding parental immunity for fifty-two years — decisions that were in full force at the time of this accident and at the time the Halpins and American Family contracted— there could be no liability in the Halpin parents. This is because our decisions rendered the parents immune from liability to their children. Thus, the Financial Responsibility Act could not void the household exclusion clause on the grounds of public policy in this case. The public policy of this state required insurance only where there was liability. Until this Court rendered the parents liable by the abrogation of parental immunity, the Financial Responsibility Act simply did not apply.
Under the plain language of the policy neither the Halpins nor American Family intended to insure the Halpin parents against actions by the Halpin children. The plain language of the Financial Responsibility Act did not require such coverage either.
Without so much as a tip of the cap to the immunity/liability question, the majority holds that a clause of the contract between the Halpins and American Family is invalid. Yet that clause accurately reflected the law and the parents’ liability to their children when the parties agreed to it.
In American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ward, 789 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. banc 1990), Judge Covington, with whom I joined, wrote:
Whatever the public policy now espoused by the State of Missouri [whether by legislation or judicial decision], this Court should not by judicial fiat retroactively impose that policy on this antecedent insurance contract.
Id. at 797 (Covington, J., concurring). The insurance contract under scrutiny here is antecedent to the announcement of the common law public policy that renders the Halpin parents liable for injuries to their children. American Family had every reason to believe that parental immunity was the law of Missouri when it agreed to insure the Halpins and determined the premium it would charge to provide the coverage which it contracted to provide. The Financial Responsibility Act required no coverage because there was no liability under parental immunity.
Because I still hold to the apparently antiquated notion that contracts define the relationships between parties, I would not retroactively impose the policy permitting children to sue parents so recently announced by this Court on this antecedent insurance contract. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.