Court Opinion

ID: 9633665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:56:13.883821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:39.593387
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:
(concurring)
As a matter of public policy and in the absence of some legislative statement on the subject, I agree with the majority that household member exclusions should be invalid only up to the limits set by our mandatory automobile insurance statutes. However, Justice Durham’s recitation of the legislative history surrounding the 1986 amendment of the relevant statutes does persuade me that with respect to insurance policies written after the effective date of that act, household member exclusions will be entirely invalid because the legislature has now made it clear that such exclusions are contrary to public policy. However, I cannot join Justice Durham in finding that the expression of such an intention in 1986 should be applied to the determination of the validity of a clause contained in a contract written many years earlier and governed by a predecessor statute.
With respect to the adhesion contract arguments made by Justice Durham, I would not reach these since this issue is not adequately presented on appeal.
Inasmuch as there are no grounds for reversing the instant case, I think it unnecessary for us to decide at this juncture whether Stoker v. Stoker, 616 P.2d 590 (Utah 1980), abrogated interspousal immu*1045nity with respect to actions grounded in negligence as well as those grounded in intentional torts.
STEWART, Associate C.J., concurs in the concurring opinion of Justice ZIMMERMAN.