Court Opinion

ID: 9639757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:47:00.774231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:21.505714
License: Public Domain

GANT, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion herein properly sets out the facts of the case, and then the opinion totally deteriorates.
This court has ruled on the “other vehicle exclusion” in three cases since 1977, and on all three occasions has upheld the exclusion. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Christian, Ky., 555 S.W.2d 571 (1977); MFA Ins. Companies v. Whitlock, Ky., 572 S.W.2d 856 (1978); Safeco Ins. Companies of America v. Hubbard, Ky., 578 S.W.2d 49 (1979).
In those cases, this court unanimously held:
... that a clause in an automobile policy excluding from uninsured motorist coverage accidents arising out of the use of vehicles owned by an insured other than the automobile described in the liability portion of the policy was a reasonable exclusion and precluded the insured’s recovery from the insurer for injuries sustained while occupying an automobile that was not described in the liability portion of the policy.
The majority opinion overrules these cases out of hand and without explaining, other than the change of personnel on the court, why this has suddenly become an unreasonable exclusion.
STEPHENS, C.J., and WINTERSHEIMER, J., join in this dissent.