Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Call

defendants, “In that the do, said at the time raises no serious possibility place aforesaid, unlawfully did language that the in the introductory in- intentionally personal take property struction could be read anything but a possession of MARK ELLIS from his summary of the contents of the informa- person, presence, against or immediate tion. In language of later will, accomplished his by the means of instructions, it is clear to reader that force or fear.” the first instruction was not intended to be used as a definition of the offenses for

COUNT III appellant which the was on trial. ATTEMPTED AGGRAVATED ROB- Having appellant’s found the claims to BERY, in violation of Section 76-6-302 merit, be without we affirm his convictions. U.C.A. as amended: defendants, “In that the said at the time HALL, C.J., and HOWE and ZIMMER- aforesaid, place unlawfully did and MAN, JJ., concur. intentionally attempt personal to take

property in possession PE- STEWART, JIM J., concurs in the result. person, TERSON from his or immediate will,

presence, against accomplished his

by the means of force or fear.” subsequent instructions,

In jury was

properly told that it before could convict appellant aggravated robbery or at-

tempted aggravated robbery, it had to find separate

each of the elements of the re- spective beyond offenses EXCHANGE, reasonable FARMERS INSURANCE doubt. These correctly later instructions Reciprocal or Interinsurance included the element of the offenses miss- Exchange, Appellant, Plaintiff and ing from the descriptive language con- above, tained in the information set forth CALL, Ilene N. Defendant and namely, deadly that a weapon was used or Respondent. bodily injury serious inflicted in the com- appellant argues mission the crime. The No. 18677. that the instructions were in “irreconcilable of Utah. Court conflict” as a result and that we must possibility reverse because of the Dec. jury was confused the conflict.

We are not convinced that the in confusing.

structions are The first instruc jury anything

tion did not direct the to do all, merely but informed them of the

contents of the information. subse instructions,

quent jury in which the re deliberating,

ceived directives for are all them,

accurate statements of the law. jury explicitly was told that before it question,

could convict of the offenses in proved

had to find that the State had be

yond appellant a reasonable doubt that the deadly weapon

used a or inflicted serious

bodily injury. reading A in fair

structions, together jury taken as the Bountiful, Roybal,

Frank plaintiff appellant. Lyle Hillyard, Logan, W. for defendant respondent. DURHAM, Justice: Exchange (“Farm- Farmers Insurance ers”), declaratory judg- in the below, ment action seeks reversal of a sum- mary judgment. The trial court ruled that a household exclusion clause in an automo- liability bile is void as to coverage requirements minimum Utah Automobile No-Fault Insurance Act (as incorporates qualifications of insur- policies under the Safety Utah Re- Act), sponsibility but is enforceable as to coverage in excess of those amounts. Therefore, pay, Farmers is de- fend, indemnify the insured under the (“Mrs. The defendant llene N. Call Call”) cross-appeals from judgment, seeking a reversal of the lower court’s or- der insofar itas ruled the household exclu- beyond sion clause to be valid the minimum coverage attorney and denied her fees and appeal costs. We affirm the and reverse in part cross-appeal. July Call, John Adam a minor

child, injured as he walked an auto- mother, mobile driven his Mrs. Call. Thereafter, an action was filed on his be- father, litem, half guardian his ad naming defendant, seeking Mrs. Call as the services, Act, $120,000 Responsibility for medical min- damages thereby mandating medication, hospitalization, and seek- liability coverages imum for all insurance $1,500,- ing general damages the sum policies security registra- used as for the had issued a standard auto- Farmers operation tion and motor vehicles covering mobile Allstate, 619 Utah. 332-33. See policy Mrs. Call as an insured. The con- Smith, Dairy Cory. also land Insurance following tains exclusion: Utah, 737, (1982). 646 P.2d 739 I: policy apply does not under Part argues Farmers public policy supporting reasons the household exclusion any of insured for to provision are upon different from those (a) injury any bodily to member of the which the named driver exclusion in All- except same household of such insured depended, state and therefore Allstate is servant.... dispositive. argument Farmers states this household exclu- Farmers suggests protecting an insurer from any obligation sion it of clause relieves possible household outweighs collusion defend, pay, indemnify or Mrs. Call from legislative provide mandate to mandatory any out arising claims of the accident in- protection for victims of acci- automobile volving argues that her son. Farmers agree. dents. We do not pro- household exclusion clause serves to might tect from collusion that insurers intrafamily

arise in suits. An right insurer has the to con specifically alleged in her with an Mrs. Call an- tract insured as risks will husband, assume, swer neither she nor her who or long will not as as neither statu purchased policy, received a tory public policy law nor is violated. Thus Further, alleged policy. she may any insurer include in a policy neither she nor her husband was aware of or of exceptions number kind and limita clause and that the insured's exclusion agree tions which an insured will unless agent or mentioned the never discussed public contrary to 2 statute G. application clause. The insur- Couch, Couch on Insurance 2d 15:48 § signed by Call ance Mr. did not mention or (rev. 1984). ed. See also Harriot v. Pacific coverage. refer exclusions from Co., National Assurance 24 Utah 2d Life 182, 185-86, 981, presented appeal: 467 P.2d (1970). Three issues are 982-83 first, Prior whether a household exclusion clause enactment of the no-fault laws, general an automobile insurance valid upheld rule required statutory validity as to the minimum cov- of household second, erages; whether a household exclu- exclusionary Annot., clauses. Validity, Construction, to insurance excess sion valid as Application Provi third, minimum; and statutory sion Policy Automobile Excluding whether Mrs. Call should be awarded attor- Coverage Injury Death Member ney fees. Family or Insured, Household 46 1024,1029 (1972). A.L.R.3d Utah followed I. See, that rule. e.g., State Farm Mutual The court determined that trial Auto Insurance Co. 26 Utah 2d (1972); is void household exclusion Kay Kay, 30 Utah 2d coverages, relying (1973). minimum 513 However, P.2d 1372 the en Allstate Insurance Co. v. United States actment of the Utah Automobile No-Fault Co., Guaranty Act, U.C.A., 1953, 619 P.2d Fidelity Insurance & 31-41-1 to §§ Allstate, -13, held that requirement 329 and the mandatory se Act, No-Fault Insurance curity Utah Automobile necessitate fresh look public at the -13, U.C.A., incorpo- questions 31-41-1 to having to do §§ with the Safety 41-12-21 of Utah rates section household exclusion clause.

234 must Mutual Sivey, Insurance Co. v. starting point analysis for this 404 Mich. be the Utah Automobile No-Fault Insur- (1978); 272 N.W.2d 555 Transamerica 31-41-4(1) of the Act Act. Section Royle, Mont., 656 requires every resident owner of a motor (1983); Estate Neal v. Farmers In security on the vehicle to maintain vehicle Exchange, surance 93 Nev. throughout registration period. This (1977); Kish v. Motor Club America changed public substantially section Co., Insurance N.J.Super. mandating state that all denied, cert. A.2d 662 N.J. Utah automobiles be covered certain (1970); Hughes v. State Farm 264 A.2d 68 types security. According to section Co., N.D., Mutual Auto Insurance 31-41-5, each automobile insurance (1975); Jordon v. Aetna Casu N.W.2d 870 security qualify used as must under the Co., alty Surety S.C. Act, U.C.A., 1953, Safety Responsibility (1975); Allstate Insurance Co. S.E.2d 818 41-12-1 to -41. “Thus reference to §§ v. Wyoming Department, Insurance Safety Responsibility legisla- Act the (1983)). See also State Wyo., 672 P.2d 810 mandatory ture has established a minimum Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. coverage liability requirement for insur- Traycik, Mich.App. 285, 86 272 N.W.2d 629 policies presented security under Co., (1979); Dowdy v. Allstate Insurance Allstate, 31-41-5.” 619 P.2d at 333. At 709, Or.App. (1984), rev. 68 685 P.2d 444 1980, 41-12-5(e) time of loss section denied, 172, (1984). 298 Or. 691 P.2d 481 Safety Responsibility Act But see Farmers Insurance Exchange v. $15,000 minimum insurance of Cocking, Cal.Rptr. 29 Cal.3d bodily injury person. of one jurisdictions 628 P.2d 1 Those The specific No-Fault Act authorizes al- interpret which invalidate the exclusion coverage. lowable exclusions from Under mandatory their insurance statutes to re Act, may an insurer exclude benefits to quire liability subject only spe any injured person only person’s “if such statutory cific exclusions and construe the injury conduct contributed to his under legislative policy require minimum cover following (i) Causing circumstances: age to victims of automobile accidents. injury (ii) intentionally; to himself or While example, For Court of the 41—10(b). committing felony.” a § 31— Kentucky State of invalidated a household permitted. There is no household exclusion statutory clause and traced a his The statute therefore directs that no auto- tory history Utah, stating: similar to the policy may mobile insurance exclude house- By enacting the MVRA Ve- [Motor hold members to the extent of minimum Reparations legislature hicles Act] liability coverage. legislative This action established for the system first time a public policy requiring reflects a minimum compulsory insurance for the owners and coverage protect innocent victims operators of motor vehicles Ken- automobile accidents. tucky. ... The household exclusion clause has been specifies ... [The scheme] by majority invalidated a decisions coverage the minimum amounts of a jurisdictions other which have addressed operator motor vehicle owner or must validity of the exclusion clause after carry requirements.... to fulfill these mandatory the enactment of automobile lia legislature ... stated the [W]hen Meyer v. Farm Mu bility State insurance. the MVRA behind and set forth its Co., Colo., tual Automobile Insurance requirements specified no exclusions (1984); Jennings Govern P.2d coverage. from minimum Co., Employees ment Insurance 302 Md. 166, 170 (1985) (citing Dewitt 488 A.2d An exclusionary clause in an insurance Young, 229 Kan. 625 P.2d 478 Co., (1981); Bishop v. Allstate Insurance contract which reduces below minimum (1981); State Farm Ky., coverages 623 S.W.2d 865 or eliminates either of these reparations adopted, benefits and minimum was could [basic be defeated private liability coverage] effectively agreements. renders a driver uninsured to extent of the The Farmers cites State Farm reduction or elimination. Because the Mutual Auto purpose stated of the MVRA is to assure Utah 2d Kay that a driver to a be insured minimum v. Kay, 30 Utah 2d level, such an exclusion contravenes the (1973), in support position that this purpose and compulsory upheld Court has a household exclusion insurance act. clause substantially present identical to the Co., Bishop v. Ky., Allstate Insurance 623 exclusion public policy grounds. These (citations S.W.2d 865-66 inapposite, however, omit- cases are they since ted). prior decided enactment of the no-fault automobile insurance laws and the Washington Supreme Court reached requirement mandatory automobile se- upon public a similar result based curity. analysis when it stated: Furthermore, persuaded we are not prevents specific class of the collusion rationale the Court victims, persons relied innocent those related to upon in opinions the Kay remains an living driver, ade negligent with the quate justification for the receiving household exclu protection financial under an Lewis, Utah, sion clause. In Malan policy containing such a (1984), this Court essence, determined clause. In this clause excludes that the Utah Guest is Statute unconstitu protection from an entire class of inno- tional and found the collusion rationale to cent victims good for no reason. be deny coverage insufficient to to innocent particularly The exclusion becomes dis- guest passengers injured in automobile ac turbing when in viewed of the fact addition, cidents. In the risk of collusion in that this is class of victims the one most intrafamily litigation has never been ac frequently exposed potential the negli- cepted by grounds this Court as for endors gence Typical insured. named ing parent-child doctrine, immunity family require family relations members which has likewise never been established together work, way ride on legislature.1 church, functions, school, family social outings. Consequently, prac- there is no acknowledge possibility While we tical method the class per- which collusion, intrafamily agree we with the protection by sons excluded from this Court, Kansas which said: provision may their conform activities so possibility of collusion exists to a [T]he ' as to exposure riding avoid to the risk of Everyday certain extent in case. who, them, with someone is unin- as depend juries judges and trial [sic] sured. to sift evidence in order determine the proper Mutual Enumclaw Insurance facts and arrive at Ex- Co. verdicts. Wiscomb, 203, 208, perience 97 Wash.2d 643 P.2d that the shown courts are quite adequate be this litiga- It would anomalous if for task. In victims, rights child, parent judges of innocent accident for tion between and protection juries naturally No-Fault whose the Utah Act would be mindful of Nielsen, Bishop property damage resulting In to her father P.2d 864 for acknowledged parent- operated by this Court that the from a collision of an automobile dicta, immunity daughter. party child doctrine did not exist in Utah. third and the In rely opinion parent-child at Id. 865. The Court on the if the did not nonex- stated that even im- doctrine, however, holding munity diction, adopted juris- istence of the for its doctrine in had been daughter equities that case in that a minor of a in favor of contribution far "joint outweigh tortfeasor” strict is statute, U.C.A.,1953, 78-27-39, under contribution the benefits of Bishop, and thus liable doctrine. P.2d at 868. § statutory relationship even more minimums. The defendant offers and would be First, improper for conduct. alert alternative theories. she claims two against as clause is void Nocktonick, 227 Kan. Nocktonick public policy. Secondly, argues that she 768-69, (1980). In Nock- 611 P.2d exclusion clause event household tonick, states that the court lists nineteen coverages, found to be void as to minimum rejected parental immunity in automo- have entirely voided it should be since neither Nocktonick, at bile accident cases. id. she nor her husband had notice of reject at 141. states Those import the household exclu- support existence collusion rationale offered agree defendant’s sec- exclusion. sion. We with the theory and ond decline to address addition, safeguards other exist to validity of time the the household exclusion against unscrupulous col- protect insurers in excess of mini- conduct thor- lusive households. Insurers mums.2 investigations, prompt notice ough require accidents, specialists function Acceptance In General Motors easy They likely to their fields. are not be Martinez, Utah, Corp. v. The in- victims of fraudulent lawsuits. (1983), this Court held that an insurance always represented by the sured is insur- neglects company which to deliver or other carefully represent company, will who disclose, writing, any wise document interest the insurer’s interest as well as the stating an exclusion in a credit life or dis Furthermore, policies most of the insured. ability estopped insurance policy will be require cooperation from the insured Although relying on the exclusion. By provide penalties false statements. de requiring Martinez involved a statute law, present any it is a criminal offense to livery disability policy a credit life upon any contract false or fraudulent claim insured, public policy expressed U.C.A., 1953, insurance. 76-6-521. § applicable equally to automobile insurance hold household or We therefore that a disability Like in policies. credit life and family exclusion clause an automobile surance, generally automobile is insurance public policy contrary to the insurance through that sold adhesion contracts are this state re-

policy of and the negotiated length. Purchas not arm’s in quirements found No-Fault Insur- commonly rely assumption ers on the that pro- Act as to the minimum benefits ance fully they by are covered the insurance prior by statute. overrule our vided We this, they buy. public poli that Because of opinions in Mutual Auto In- State Farm cy requires persons purchasing that such 195, 487 Kay, 26 Utah 2d surance Co. informed, in policies are entitled writ to be 852, 94, Kay v. 2d P.2d 30 Utah ing, of essential terms 1372, they are 513 P.2d extent that contracts, especially exclusionary terms. opinion. with this inconsistent Martinez, P.2d 668 at 501.

II. We therefore hold where the insurer disclose exclusions in an The next issue is a household fails to material whether policy pur- policy clause an automobile insurance exclusion automobile writing, in excess of the chaser is not of them in valid as to limits informed contract); jurisdictions 2. We note split that other have Arcenaux Farm Mut. v. State Auto. Co., 216, (1976) (cover- Meyer Mut. Auto. 113 Ariz. P.2d 87 this issue. See v. State Farm Ins. 550 Colo., Co., (1984) (holding age by in excess of statute 689 P.2d 592 that mandated not Ins. statute); subject provisions policy apply state stat- to the limits of carrier’s where Dewitt (1981) purpose mandatory Young, 229 Kan. declared v. (limiting 625 P.2d ute liability inadequate compensation to cover- is to "avoid carrier’s to minimum laws Wiscomb, statute); victims”); by age required v. Farm- Mutual Estate Neal Enumclaw Exch., (1982) (permitting 566 P.2d 81 Wash.2d 643 P.2d 441 ers Ins. (exclusion Nev. policy despite recovery only extent that it vio- to full limits carrier’s invalid to the statutory requirements). clause was no freedom lates exclusion where there those exclusions are invalid. Without dis- Calls. to an answer interrogatory toas closure, the household exclusion clause given whether it any had (including insured fails to “honor the expecta- reasonable Call) Mr. and Mrs. notice of the household purchaser, rendering tions” the ex- exclusion at the time of application re- or clusion clause invalid as to the entire newal, Farmers stated that such informa- n limits. Transamerica Insurance Co. v. tion was “unavailable.” Since Farmers Mont., Royle, (1983); ac- provide any failed to evidence that it deliv- Wiscomb, cord Mutual Enumclaw ered or otherwise disclosed Wash.2d 643 P.2d 441 Calls, they clause to the not were informed of essential terms to the insur- summary judgment On motion for contract, and that clause is will review or therefore uncertainty doubt con- invalid as to the entire cerning fact in amounts. issues of most party opposing summary favorable judgment. Telephone Mountain States & III. Atkin, Telegraph Wright Miles, Co. v. & In her cross-appeal, Mrs. ar Call Chartered, Utah, gues that the trial court should be reversed (1984). The record this case does not in its refusal to award her attorney fees reflect existence of a material factual and costs. relies on She American States dispute regarding disclosure the exclu- Walker, 26 Utah 2d Although sion. Farmers admits that it is- up where this Court Calls, sued a to the it was unable held an attorney such award fees in a produce any exclusionary evidence that the declaratory judgment action an insurer disclosed, terms against insured to determine delivered, or Mr. Mrs. Call an under automobile insurance were otherwise informed of the household stated, however, “[bjefore Court an exclusion.3 Mrs. Call asserts of attorney’s award fees be made [can] household exclusion was never mentioned action, declaratory it must agent. discussed Farmers’ In her appear company that the insurance acted answer, affirmatively Mrs. alleges Call fraudulently stubbornly bad faith or was agent the Farmers never indicated Farm- 164-65, litigious.” Id. at 486 P.2d at 1044 ers’ standard insurance contract contained (footnote omitted). The defendant a household exclusion that nei- litigation demonstrated that this was not

ther she nor her husband ever received a brought good faith. copy contract. This was never con- When faced with decision to whether During discovery, troverted Farmers. defend, to defend or refuse to insurer is Farmers released its file to the to declaratory judgment entitled seek a defendant. file applica- This contained the obligations to and signed rights. tion for insurance on See State December Kay, Farm Mutual Auto and several renewal notices. Neither 2d the the Utah nor renewal notices con- (1971). attorney tain make An or reference to the award fees is not household Noticeably plaintiff the merely exclusion. absent from the file warranted “where stat- anywhere position and to be not found the record ed its and initiated this action for policy signed by is or appears a identified to the determination of to be justi- what a question company 3. We note that the fact that the defendant an Mrs. whether only pur- obligation policy provisions Call was a named insured and not a an to disclose all rather, policy pur- stay, chaser on the automobile insurance named insureds. We within the (albeit applied by statute) her chased husband is irrelevant to the out- rule re- Martinez policy quiring delivery purchaser. come of this case. That is so because the or disclosure a purchased by purchaser was her husband for the case house- In this the interests of the and unit, coincide, contemplated hold and the benefits he the insured and the failure to disclose precludes extended to Mrs. as well as Call to himself. We the former the exclusion of cover- opinion age do not treat rule on the the for latter. controversy.” Casualty plaintiff & asked whether had ever issued eiable Western Marchant, P.2d her Surety an automobile insurance hus- Co. agree We with the trial affirmatively. band. answered Farmers there is no foundation for court that inquire poli- Defendant did not whether the attorney and costs to delivered, fees award cy had ever been mailed or nor portion affirm defendant and Farmers had informed Mr. Call in whether appeal on are awarded to judgment. Costs writing exclusions.1 view Call. the defendant record, I this state of the am unable leap majority make the that the makes and J., CONDER, STEWART, and DEAN E. plaintiff assume did not Judge, District concur. mail or deliver to its time otherwise insured copy policy. highly impor- a HOWE, (concurring and dissent- Justice majority’s tant since under the view of the ing): “delivered,” law msut be I III the Court’s parts I concur in purchaser must otherwise be informed it is join part I cannot II because opinion. “Delivery” writing of the exclusion. would assumption of fact which we founded on place upon mailing by plaintiff. take make, recovery by and it cannot directs actually received it Whether insured theory plaintiff a which she did not raise inconsequential be if it was in would fact judgment. summary motion for in her “mailing” “delivery” mailed. Since nor Consequently, presented it was not into, summary inquired not were granting upon by the trial court in ruled “delivery” lack of not appropri- based on men- summary judgment not even and was juncture.2 ate at this cross-appeal filed point on the tioned as a in this by the defendant Court. court, parties In the trial moved for both summary judgment. plaintiff’s theory complaint, plaintiff alleged In its was that household exclusion was valid policy No. 62 07 to de- issued 76 10203 enforceable, relying upon State Farm answer to the fendant’s husband. In her Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. alleged that nei- complaint, the defendant 2d and Kay Utah a she nor her husband received ther Kay, 30 Utah 2d had no knowl- therefore (1973). The also moved for defendant sum- It edge any of its terms and exclusions. mary judgment theory due to originally appears writ- was developments in those the law since cases eighteen the acci- over months before ten Court, should semiannually decided hold dent and had been renewed exclusion is procedure household unenforcea- by Mr. Call. Since our rules being public responsive a ble as violative permit to file do defendant, Thus, presented the trial court was with a pleading to an answer of law, pure question and it ruled that had no occasion to controvert Farmers copy. he received a clause was invalid as defendant’s denial that $15,000 insurance, Later, interrogatories propounded by the the first but thereof. plaintiff, the defendant valid as to amounts excess It is defendant to majority kept by 2. The file interrogatory Call to in the Farmers on Mr. reflects 1. The referred 1-27-81, again agent the opinion "information that on 1-19-81 and on which Farmers answered unavailable,” "Policy requested only inquired any by insured written memo to Service" whether given specifically express Call's be "re-issued” because in- notice that the was exclusion, appli- "misplaced” This memo is at the time of sured had his. sub- household “either ject interpretation did to the that Mr. Call or at the time renewal.” It not did in- cation policy, inquire times have a of his but whether Farmers had at other deed once mis- requested placed agent. it and another from the Mr. or Mrs. Call written information furnished exclusions) subject explored on (including This whole was not summa- about the but why point ry judgment points up "specifically" "expressly" a remand is did not which necessary defendant herself contends. out the household exclusion. —as important her disputed to note that in memorandum relating facts allegations by to opposition plaintiffs motion for sum- to [plaintiff] that agents and its [defendant] judgment, mary the defendant contended duty breached their by failing fully to against that even if on she ruled inform lack cover- [defendant] question presented court, to the trial law age in her insurance coverage. she had her theory entitling another to majority ignores forthright conten- disposed recover which could not be of on tion by made the defendant in the trial judgment. the motion summary for court and which she now makes in this theory was that she her husband had Court she that is not to summary entitled upon plaintiffs agents relied over the judgment on her theory recovery second years provide adequate to them with insur- depends upon because it facts which are coverage they that had failed to disputed inquired and which were not into specifically point out or warn them about on summary this motion for judgment. In- the household exclusion clause. But she stead, majority now relieves defend- argued recovery theory that on this de- proof ant of all earnestly which she so pended upon facts which still had to be produce maintains she must and announces developed. in her She stated memoran- without factual basis therefor that the dum: delivered, never terms not Defendant maintains issues of disclosed, and thus the defendant is auto- facts still to be if resolved even matically entitled to recover. family exclusion clause valid are, first, whether defendant on relied again Time and time this Court held plaintiffs agents provide adequate to in- points it will not consider and conten- second, coverage; surance whether such tions not raised the trial court. We have reasonable; third, and, reliance was pointed repeatedly are out we a court plaintiff pro- to duty whether breached a appeal and must afford the trial court adequate coverage. vide Find- opportunity upon first to rule issues ings against these plaintiff issues [sic] litigants. theories advanced may estop plaintiff on relying this doing Yet in case sponte this we are sua Hence, exclusion. plaintiffs motion very thing litigants forbid to summary judgment granted cannot be do. Whether insurance was against unless the court holds defendant mailed or delivered on each of these as a issues matter Mr. Call has never been claimed based law on scant record file before right defendant to be determinative of her it, clearly which action in error. would be going If it recover. is now be deter- added.) Thus, (Emphasis it is clear that action, adequate in this an minative record did the defendant not contend in the trial question should be made. As the delivery court that lack of out, correctly points defendant factual mat- would, law, alone as matter make the summary ters remain be resolved before unenforceable, household exclusion clause theory proper would be on her majority as the now holds. upon that she and her husband relied Court, appeal, Even this in this adequate furnish her Farmers to defendant makes no such contention. coverage, including disclosure of the house- Court, her brief filed this the defendant hold I exclusion. would remand case to states: trial court for a trial the defendant’s trial did rule court not on whether [T]he point theory and would not reach family the household or out theory and decide the case on a specifically applies [defendant] presented advanced in the court trial nor case. The trial court reserved the issue cross-appeal. us on defendant’s specific applicability the clause to gratuitous I dissent from the extension pending appeal issues [defendant] U.C.A., 1593, light majority before this court and in 31-34-

now § The policies. 6(1) to automobile its

legislature clearly limited disability insurance. Gener-

credit life and Martinez, Corp. Acceptance

al Motors

Utah, Extending the beyond clear terms under

statute public policy judicial promoting

guise

legislating. C.J., concurring

HALL, concurs HOWE, dissenting opinion of J.

and J.,

ZIMMERMAN, participate does not

herein.

The Plaintiff STATE Respondent, KIRGAN,

Dixie L. Defendant Appellant. 20579.

No. Court Utah.

Dec. Olsen, Midvale,

Nolan J. for defendant appellant. Wilkinson, City, L. Salt Lake David respondent. PER CURIAM: judgment from a appeals Defendant sitting guilty rendered the trial court aggravated jury on an offense of without assault, degree felony, in violation third ed.). U.C.A., 1953, (1978 76-5-103 We § affirm. facts in a most favor- reviewed of fact are to the trier

able in an alter- engaged as follows: Defendant

Case Details

Case Name: Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Call

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 10, 1985

Citation: 712 P.2d 231

Docket Number: 18677

Court Abbreviation: Utah