Hoskin

California Cas. Indem. Exch. v. Hoskin

Good Law
147 Cal. Rptr. 348·1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1719·82 Cal. App. 2d 789·82 Cal. App. 3d 789
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 13, 1978Civ. 3273California2,623 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nairn, J.

This is a case of first impression in the State of California.

The California Casualty Indemnity Exchange (hereinafter respondent) sued for a declaration that Carol Hoskin (appellant) was not afforded liability coverage or uninsured motorist protection under her automobile insurance policy with respondent with respect to an accident occurring on March 22, 1973. The matter was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts, and thereafter the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of respondent and judgment was entered. We affirm.

The agreed statement of facts is as follows:

The policy of the State of California with regard to exclusion of the named insured or members of his family is clear and unequivocal.

“In a line of cases extending at least back to 1966, supported by authorities from other jurisdictions extending back considerably further than that, the courts of this state had indicated that a liability insurance provision excluding the named insured or members of his family from coverage was valid and not in contravention of public policy. (See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., [1966] 242 Cal.App.2d 227, 234 [ 51…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.