ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plаintiff-Appellee, v. Cathy BOLES and Wilbur Boles, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 585S198
Supreme Court of Indiana
Aug. 23, 1985
481 N.E.2d 1096
In this case Defendant was discovered inside a dwelling where he had no right to be. The door had been broken in. Police, after apprehending Defendant and his companion, discovered an open freezer inside the apartment. Defendant attempted to flee when the officers arrived. From this evidence the jury properly could have concluded that Defendant had the intent to commit a theft inside the apartment at the time either he or his companion broke the door; and, under these circumstances, it is immaterial which of the two did the actual breaking. In a recent case presenting very similar facts we rejected the same contention that Defendant makes here—that the evidence showed the confederate, not the defendant, committed the burglary when both were discovered inside a dwelling. See Sizemore v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 215, 217-218. We also conclude in this case that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
We find no reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.
HUNTER, J., not participating.
John W. Hammel, Yarling, Robinson, Hammel & Lamb, Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
PIVARNIK, Justice.
This cause comes to us on a certification of a question of state law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This Court has jurisdiction to answer said certified question pursuant to
Defendants-Appellants Wilbur Boles and Cathy Boles were married on December 10, 1972, and have resided together as husband and wife since that date. From September, 1981 until August, 1983 the defendants resided together neаr the City of Indianapolis, Indiana.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Allstate Insurance Company, issued Allstate Automobile Policy number 12913540 to Wilbur Boles, effective from August 10, 1981, through February 10, 1982. On November 12, 1981, Wilbur Boles, while operating his automobile covered in the Allstate policy, struck a pine tree lying in the road. Cathy Boles, a passenger at the time, suffered injuries to her person as a result of the collision.
On May 17, 1983, Cathy Boles filed a Complaint for Damages in the Marion Superior Court, Civil Division. In her complaint, she claimed permanent injuries, loss of income, and medical expenses, totalling fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars in damages.
On June 21, 1983, Allstate commenced a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. An amended complaint was filed on June 24, 1983, in which Allstate sought five declarations. Allstate sought, first, a declaration that the Policy does not provide any coverage for any claims of Cathy Boles against Wilbur Boles arising out of the November 12th accident. Second, Allstate sought a declaration that the Policy does not provide any coverage based upon its uninsured motorist provisions for claims for injuries and losses arising out of the accident. Allstate also sought a declaration that it is not obligated under the Policy to defend, assist in defending or expend any money in defending Mr. Boles against the claims by Mrs. Boles arising out of the accident. The fourth declaration Allstate sought was that it is under no duty to compromise, settle or expend any money in аttempting to compromise or to settle any claims asserted by Mrs. Boles against Mr. Boles arising out of the accident. Finally, Allstate sought a declaration that it is under no duty to pay or satisfy any judgment involving any claim asserted by Mrs. Boles against Mr. Boles for damages arising out of the accident.
On November 16, 1983, Allstate moved for summary judgment, by asserting the Policy exclusion against coverage for injuries sustained by persons related to the insured by blood, marriage, or adoption, residing in his household. Section I, Coverage AA of the Policy provides insurance coverage for liability for bodily injury arising out of the ownership, maintenance and use of an automobile. With respect to Coverage AA, the Policy clearly states as follows:
SECTION I
LIABILITY PROTECTION
Automobile Liability Insurance
COVERAGE AA—Bodily Injury
COVERAGE BB—Property Damage
Exclusions—what this Section of the policy does not cover
This Section I does not apply to:
* * * * * *
7. bodily injury to any person who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to an insured against whom claim is made if such person resides
in the same household as such insured;
(emphasis in the original).
Allstate further asserted that Mrs. Boles’ claims were not covered by the uninsured motorist provision of the Policy. In response, Mrs. Boles conceded that Mr. Boles was not an uninsured motorist, and did not contend that the uninsured motorist provisions of the Policy were involved in this action. However, Mrs. Boles asserted that the household exclusion provision of the Policy is against the public policy of the State of Indiana.
On July 5, 1984, the district court granted summary judgment for Allstate on all the issues of the amended complaint. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boles, 587 F.Supp. 807 (S.D.Ind.1984). Mrs. Boles appealed the decision, renewing her argument that the household exclusion provision of the Policy is contrary to the public policy of the State of Indiana, as evidenced by statute and case law. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that there were no clear controlling precedents in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Indiana, nor any controlling statutes determining whether a household exclusion provision, at least when applied to preclude liability coverage of injuries sustained by the spouse of the insured, is contrary to the public pоlicy of Indiana. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to this Court:
Is a household exclusion provision of an automobile liability insurance policy contrary to the public policy of Indiana, as expressed in statute or case law, when applied to preclude liability coverage of injuries sustained by the spouse of the insured?
This Court is of the opinion that the insurance policy provision commonly referred to as the “household exclusion clause” does not contravene any public policy of Indiana, explicitly or implicitly expressed in case or statutory law. Accordingly, the household exclusion clause in insurance contracts are valid and enforceable such that it may preclude liability coverage of injuries sustained by the spouse of an insured.
Insurance companies are free to limit their liability in a manner not inconsistent with public policy as reflected by case or statutory lаw. Evans v. Nat‘l Life Acc. Ins. Co., (1984) Ind.App., 467 N.E.2d 1216, reh. denied. If a plainly expressed exception, exclusion or limitation in an insurance policy is not contrary to public policy, it is entitled to construction and enforcement as expressed. Id. The insured parties, involved in the suit which has given rise to the certification of the question now before us, argue the household exclusion clause contravenes public policy expressed, implicitly or explicitly, in Brooks v. Robinson, (1972) 259 Ind. 16, 284 N.E.2d 794 and three motor vehicle statutes. The motor vehicle statutes are as follows: the Uninsured Motorists Coverage Statute,
In Brooks v. Robinson, supra, this Court abrogated the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity in tort actions. Our rationale for doing so was that the public policy supporting interspousal immunity was no longer sound. In Brooks, we reviewed the two facets of public policy for which the doctrine of interspousal immunity was created. The first public policy concern was that tort actions between husband and wife would tend to disrupt the peace and harmony of the marriage; the second concern was that such actions would tend to promote fraud, collusion and trivial litigation. In rejecting both concerns as no longer overriding societal concerns to justify the retention of interspousal immunity, we noted the law had evolved to permit spouses to sue one another in
To adopt such a view requires the blanket assumption that our court system is so ill-fitted to deal with such litigation that the only reasonable alternative to allowing husband-wife tort litigation is to summarily deny all relief to this class of litigants. It should be noted that this ‘reasonable alternative’ is absolutely contrary to the spirit of our legal system—namely, an injured party may seek redress for his injuries in our courts.
Id. at 21, 284 N.E.2d at 796-797.
However, our holding in Brooks dealt strictly with the right or ability of one spouse to sue the other in tort. It did not, in any manner, deal with the ability of a successful spouse to satisfy a judgment. We are now confronted with whether the right of a spouse to sue another spouse in tort should supercede the latter spouse‘s right to freely contract with an insurance company. We think not and agree with the following rationale stated by the Idаho Supreme Court in Porter v. Farmers Insurance Co., (1981) 102 Idaho 132, 627 P.2d 311, when that Court was confronted with this same issue:
The right to sue a spouse for injuries caused by that spouse is an entirely separate matter from the contractual obligation of an insurance company to pay for those injuries.
We finalized our opinion in Brooks by stating the abrogation of interspousal immunity reflects the letter and spirit of
All courts shall be open; and every man, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; cоmpletely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.
In Brooks we first addressed the archaic nature of the public policy supporting the doctrine of interspousal immunity. Having found the public policy outdated, we abrogated the doctrine. We then indicated that the public policy supporting the abrogation of interspousal immunity was to allow a spouse the right to redress injury in a court of law, like any other injured party. Further, like any other injured party, the ability to recover from an insurer is limited by the coverage the defendant contracted for as stated in clear terms in the insurance contract. Accordingly, the household exclusion provision does not contravene any public policy underlying our decision in Brooks.
Whether the household exclusion clause is contrary to the Indiana Uninsured Motorist Statute,
No such policy shall be issued or delivered in this state to the owner of a motor vehicle, by any domestic or foreign corporation, insurance underwriters, association or other insurer authorized to do business in this state, unless there shall be contained within such policy a provision insuring such owner against liability for damages for death or injury to person or property resulting from negligence in the operation of such motor vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person legally using or operating the same with the permission, expressed or implied, of such owner. If a motor vehicle is owned jointly by a husband and wife, either spouse may, with the written consent of the other spouse, be excluded from coverage under the policy. A husband and wife may choose instead to have their liability covered under separate policies. A policy issued in violation of this section shall nevertheless, be held valid but be deemed to include the provisions required by this section, and when any provision in such policy or rider is in conflict with the provision required to be contained by this section, the rights, duties and obligations of the insurer, the policyholder and the injured person or persons shall be governed by the provisions of this section.
The household exclusion provision does not contravene the public policy upon which this portion of the statute was enacted. This provision requiring liability insurance coverage for the owner for injuries caused by the operation of the vehicle by a permittee is restricted to requiring coverage for the owner‘s vicarious liability which might arise because of the permittee‘s negligent act. Only the owner‘s possible vicarious liability is required to be covered, and not the permittee‘s liability, or any direct negligence of the owner.
The 1981 amendment to
Finally, the Safety-Responsibility and Driver Improvement Act,
(a) The commissioner shall requirе, ... from any person who, while operating any motor vehicle ... shall have been involved in any motor vehicle accident
resulting in bodily injury or death ... or, in the discretion of the commissioner, from the person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered, or both, security sufficient ... to indemnify the injured party against loss.... If the owner or operator shall satisfy the commissioner that the liability, if any, for damages resulting from the accident is insured by an insurance policy or bond, or the liability is released, the commissioner shall not require security from the owner or operator. (b) The security ... shall be in such amount as the commissioner may require, but in no case in excess of the amount of proof required by
I.C. § 9-2-1-15 ....(c) If the person ... required to furnish the security ... neglects or refuses to comply ... the commissioner shall suspend his current driving license and the registration of every motor vehicle owned by him ...
(h) Where bodily injury to, or death of, any person, or damage to property in an amount apparеntly exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) results from an accident in which a motor vehicle is in any manner, directly or indirectly involved, all motor vehicle operating privileges of the operator of the vehicle involved, shall stand suspended by operation of law on the ninetieth (90th) day following the date of the accident, unless prior to the ninetieth (90th) day, the operator has deposited security ...
(emphasis supplied).
The primary purpose, as indicated by the security requirements of these provisions оf the Act is to facilitate loss recovery by auto accident victims. However, the Act is not a compulsory insurance statute as evidenced by the provision allowing alternative means of proving financial responsibility.
Whenever a court considers invalidating a contract on public policy grounds, it must always weigh in the balance the parties’ freedom to contract. Although special rules of construction of insurance contracts have been developed due to the disparity in bargaining power between insurers and the insured‘s, if a contract is clear and unambiguous, the language therein must be given its plain meaning. Vernon Fire and Casualty Co. v. American Underwriters, Inc., (1976) 171 Ind.App. 309, 356 N.E.2d 693. The household exclusion clause is clear and unambiguous. Further, as seen in our analysis, it does not contravene public policy rеflected in our case law or motor vehicle statutes. Accordingly, our answer to the certified question is that a household exclusion provision of an automobile liability insurance policy is not contrary to public policy of Indiana, as expressed in statute or case law, when applied to preclude liability coverage of injuries sustained by the spouse of an insured.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to certify copies of this Opinion to Judges
GIVAN, C.J., and PRENTICE, J., concur.
DeBRULER, J., dissents with separate opinion.
HUNTER, J., not participating.
DeBRULER, Justice, dissenting.
The facts giving rise to the underlying claim are that Cathy Boles, wife of Wilbur Boles, was injured in 1981, while a passenger in their car insured by Allstate Insurance Company. He was driving when the car struck a tree in the roadway. She sued him. Allstate sued for declaration of its duties under the policy. The policy expressly excluded coverage for bodily injury to persons such as Cathy Boles because she was married to and residing with the person against whom she was making claim.
Cathy Boles, appellant, contends that the household exclusion provision limiting general automobile liability coverage is unenforceable in her situation by public policy which is to be found in the framework of the law represented by this court‘s opinion in Brooks v. Robinson (1972), 259 Ind. 16, 284 N.E.2d 794, in which this court abrogated interspousal tort immunity;
Guided by the rules governing judicial application and interpretations of legislative enactments, including (1) ascertainment and effectuation of legislative intent, (2) adherence to сlear language, (3) prevention of irrational result or results contrary to legislative intent, and (4) judicial restraints, Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp. (1981), Ind., 418 N.E.2d 207, I have examined the last-cited source of law, namely the Safety-Responsibility Act, and have concluded that its provisions and the legislative intent they reflect, are decisive in resolving the question presented. The act as a whole, according to the Attorney General, “.... is predicated upon a state policy to facilitate recovery for loss suffered bеcause of the negligent operation of motor vehicles by others.” A.G., 1944, Op. No. 8, p. 22. According to this view, loss recovery serves state interests and loss recovery will be more successful through the mechanisms created in the act. Appellee Allstate, with substantial support from cases of the Court of Appeals, including Green v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (1976), 168 Ind.App. 434, 343 N.E.2d 828, holds to a narrower view, which is basic to its legal position. Such view is that the mechanisms in the statute do not “apply” until an accident occurs, and facilitate no recovery for losses resulting in such first accident, but only those resulting from second or subsequent accidents.
The legislative intent operating through the mechanism surrounding security requirements, with its goal to render loss recovery more successful, would have little vitality, if the insurance industry is free to sell basic and primary automobile policies in which the liability coverage is not general and commensurate with the scope of legal liability or up to minimum amounts. I would hold that the household exclusion clause is inoperative in the instance of the Boles claim, as repugnant to the public policy of the Safety-Responsibility Act.