Exclusion in Auto Coverage for Liability to Employee
Passenger in a company vehicle was injured in single vehicle accident that was the fault of the driver of the company vehicle (driver was goofing off and took a corner too fast and rolled the vehicle). Driver is an employee of the company. Received a letter from the liability carrier denying coverage based upon the following exclusion: Damages for bodily injury sustained by an individual employed by any insured, if the legal obligation arose out of an occurrence that took place in the course and scope of that employment. The denial letter did not list the company name, just the name of one of the owners of the company. Is this exclusion valid in this situation?
Answer: It’s certainly invalid to the extent of compulsory minimum insurance limits ($25/50) See: Equity Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spring Valley Wholesale Nursery, Inc., 1987 OK 121, 747 P.2d 947, 951 (radius exclusion in a truck policy); Young v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 1987 OK 88, 743 P.2d 1084; (young driver exclusion); Nation v. State Farm Ins. Co., 1994 OK 54, 880 P.2d 877 (household resident exclusion). Gordon v. Gordon, 2002 OK 5, 41 P.3d 391 (household exclusion valid to extent claimant has minimum required coverage. Hartline v. Hartline, 2001 OK 15, 39 P.3d 765: Invalid to extent insured is denied minimum coverage from any source. O’Neil v. Long, 2002 OK 63, 54 P.3d 109, 116: Use beyond scope of permission not a defense. Sisk v. Gaines, 2006 OK CIV APP 117, 144 P.3d 204: Renter’s car insurance company required by compulsory insurance law to cover non-permitted driver of rental car which qualified as a temporary substitute vehicle under renter’s policy. Baldridge v. Kirkpatrick, 2003 OK CIV APP 9, 63 P.3d 568: Lack of notice not a defense to compulsory insurance law coverage. Anno. 31 ALR2d 645: Failure to Give Notice or Other Lack of Cooperation by Insured as Defense to Action by Injured Member of the Public.
Posted on Fri, February 27, 2015
by Travis Law Office filed under