This is аn appeal from a declaratory judgment entered in favor of appellee Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company upholding a clause in a liability policy which excluded coverage to the spouse of the policyholder. The single point argued on appeal is that the trial court erred in upholding the exclusion of a member of the same household from coverage in the liability policy. We hold that the declaratory judgment was properly entered and therefore affirm.
The fаcts in this case are not in dispute. By stipulation the parties agreed that the appellee issued an automobile policy to appellant Thomas E. Cook for a period of time which includеd the date of the occurrence in question. The stipulation reveals that appellants Thomas and Mary Cook were husband and wife at all times pertinent to this appeal. The appellee’s policy covered the vehicle for liability, but specifically excluded household members.
Thomas Cook was driving his automobile on October 16, 1986, with Mary Cook riding as a passenger, when it collided with another аutomobile driven by Blake Frost. Mary Cook filed a negligence action against both her husband and Frost. A declaratory judgment was then commenced by the appellee.
The exclusion from liability coverаge under the policy was “for bodily injury to you or any family member.” The policy defined “you” and “your” as the “named insured” and the “spouse” if a resident of the same household. We considered such an exclusionary clause in an automobile liability policy in State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Cartmel,
We faced a somewhat similar question in the case of Holcomb v. Farmers Insurance Exchange,
We conclude, therefore, that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 66-4003 [the uninsured motorist statute] does not restriсt contracts between liability insurance companies and the owners of automobiles in this state to the extent urged by the appellants, and we hold that the policy exclusion in the case at bar was valid and effective in this case.
The court rejected Holcomb’s argument that public policy dеmanded the exclusion be held invalid.
The same issue addressed in Holcomb was considered by this court in Lucky v. Equity Mutual Insurance Co.,
Appellant suggests that we should overrule our holding in Holcomb v. Farmers Insurance Exchangе,254 Ark. 514 ,495 S.W.2d 155 (1973). We find no merit in this contention. The construction there given to the uninsured motorist statute has become аs much a part of the statute as the words of the General Assembly [citation omitted].
We have more recently considered the same question in Crawford v. EMCASCO Insurance Co.,
The appellants argue that the compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance law еnacted by the General Assembly, Act 442 of 1987 (Ark. Code Ann. § 27-22-101 et seq. (Supp. 1987)) renders such exclusionary clauses in liability policies invalid. The legislative intent of the Act was expressed in § 27-22-101 (a):
This chapter is not intended in any way tо alter or affect the validity of any policy provisions, exclusions, exceptions, or limitations сontained in a motor vehicle insurance policy required by this chapter.
The General Assembly is presumed to be aware of our decisions. It is particularly significant that, in enacting the compulsory insuranсe law, the legislature specifically recognized that liability policy provisions included exclusiоns and limitations. Moreover, the legislature has specifically provided that the compulsory insurance law was not intended to affect the validity of any policy exclusions. Since the legislature has nоt indicated any intent to overrule our longstanding precedents, and we find no compelling public policy reason for doing so, we decline the invitation to overrule our prior decisions.
Affirmed.