 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salviejo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.6/17/1998
he Conclusion of the [trial] court is that the court leaps from the finding that intrafamily tort immunity is no longer an ironclad doctrine in Georgia to the Conclusion that a [household] exclusion clause is against public policy. We do not agree that modification of intra family tort immunity in Georgia mandates this result. We find, however, that to allow the exclusion under the facts of this case would be against the public policy of this state because of the resulting conflict with the policy underlying our compulsory [automobile] insurance law. As we have clearly stated, compulsory liability insurance is required not only for the benefit of the insured but to ensure compensation for innocent victims of negligent motorists.
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphases added). As this passage reveals, the household exclusion was found to violate public policy due to the state's compulsory automobile insurance liability law; given that this law evidenced a policy of "complete liability coverage," the Georgia Supreme Court reasoned that it would be against public policy to permit a tort suit among family members but then deny liability coverage to the responsible family member. It is clear that the Georgia Supreme Court did not hold that the modification of intrafamily immunity, on its own, rendered the household exclusion void as against public policy.
This interpretation is further supported by Stepho, where the Georgia Supreme Court stated that "the public policy considerations relating to [household] exclusion provisions in automobile liability insurance policies stem from the legislature's enactment of the mandatory [automobile] insurance statute." Stepho, 383 S.E.2d at 888 (emphasis added). The "dual policies" of the statute were considered to be "protection for innocent victims of negligent members of the motoring public" and the "protection of the insured against unfair exposure to unanticipated liability." Id. If the household exclusion were valid, the injured family member "would be left unprotected" and, additionally, if there were no intrafamily tort immunity, then the insured family member would have "unfair exposure to unanticipated liability." Id. at 888-89. The household exclusion in an automobile insurance policy was thus declared invalid. Id. at 889.
It is noteworthy that the Georgia Court of Appeals has upheld and enforced a similar household exclusion clause in a homeowner's insurance policy. See Southern Fire & Cas. Co. v. Jamerson, 479 S.E.2d 404 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). In Jamerson, the Georgia court found unambiguous a provision excluding personal liability coverage to bodily injury sustained by the "'insured,'" with the insured defined as "'you and residents of your household who are: a. your relatives; or b. other persons under the age of 21 and in the care of any person named above.'" Id. at 405-06 (quoting the homeowner's policy at issue). The Georgia court further held that a child who "was in the care of a resident relative of the [insured's] household . . . was an insured under the terms of the policy. Because [the child] was an insured, coverage did not extend to his death under the bodily injuries exclusion." Id. at 406. Apparently the parties did not contend that the exclusion was void as against public policy, and the Georgia Court of Appeals did not indicate anything to that effect; instead, the exclusion was enforced. Id.
D.
The foregoing cases demonstrate that the great weight of authority appears to be directly contrary to Plaintiffs' contention that the public policy against intrafamily tort immunity renders the household exclusion void. We consider the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Emers
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|