Jauregui

In this declaratory relief action, the trial court granted Mid-Century Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment finding a *1547 provision of the insured’s automobile insurance policy limited coverage for a permissive user of the insured vehicle. Evelia Jauregui, the injured third party, appeals. The pivotal issue presented is whether the policy language fixing damages to the limits of the financial responsibility law only if caused by a permissive driver is conspicuous and clear so as to preclude coverage under the contract of insurance. Finding as a matter of law the provision defeats the reasonable expectations of the insured and it is inconspicuous and vague, we reverse the judgment.

Statement of Facts

The insured, Larry King, was provided an “E-Z Reader Car Policy.” The cover page of the policy states: “Your E-Z Reader Car Policy offers protection tailored to your needs. It is written in non-technical easy-to-read style. HO Please read this policy to make sure you understand the coverage it provides.”

Part 1 of the E-Z Reader Policy described liability coverage. On the first page, an insured person is defined as:

On the first column of the second page is a…

I dissent.

The majority refuses to enforce the clause of the insurance contract limiting the coverage of permissive users of the insured automobile on the grounds the clause is inconspicuous and unclear, and defeats the reasonable expectations of the insured.

The majority applies the requirements of conspicuity and clarity without explaining why it applies to the clause in question. Insurance contracts are subject to rules of construction and interpretation which are different from ordinary contracts. Usually being characterized as adhesion contracts, all ambiguities are interpreted in favor of the insured. (Ponder v. Blue Cross of Southern California (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 709, 718 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 632 ].) There are no ambiguities here. The clause in question is quite precise in its meaning.

*1554 However, there are special rules for the enforcement of clauses which are exclusions from coverage. 1 Such clauses to be given effect must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear” (Ponder v. Blue Cross of Southern California, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 719 ). These requirements, however, do not apply unless the exclusion disappoints the reasonable expectations of the insured. Some authority…

In this declaratory relief action, the trial court granted Mid-Century Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment finding a provision of the insured's automobile insurance policy limited coverage for a permissive user of the insured vehicle. Evelia Jauregui, the injured third party, appeals. The pivotal issue presented is whether the policy language fixing damages to the limits of the financial responsibility law only if caused by a permissive driver is conspicuous and clear so as to preclude coverage under the contract of insurance. Finding as a matter of law the provision defeats the reasonable expectations of the insured and it is inconspicuous and vague, we reverse the judgment.

The insured, Larry King, was provided an "E-Z Reader Car Policy." The cover page of the policy states: "Your E-Z Reader Car Policy offers protection tailored to your needs. It is written in non-technical easy-to-read style. [¶] Please read this policy to make sure you understand the coverage it provides."

Part 1 of the E-Z Reader Policy described liability coverage. On the first page, an insured person is defined as:

"1. You or any family member.

"2. Any person using your…