Plаintiff, as next friend of several minors, brought this action for a declaratory judgment. The court was asked to determine the liabil *99 ity of defendant Farmers Insurance Group under an insurance policy issued to defendant Alcodray, the minors’ father, and also the liability of defendant Secrеtary of State as director of the Motor Vehiclе Accident Claims Fund, MCLA 257.1101 et seq.; MSA 9.2801 et seq. 1 The court below voided an exclusionary clause in the policy issued by defendant Farmers Insurаnce Group. Defendant insurer appeals.
Defendant insurer issued to Michael Alcodray an insúrance policy providing protection against liability arising out оf his ownership, maintenance or use of his automobilе. The policy, however, excluded coveragе "to liability of any insured for bodily injury to (a) any member of the same household of the insured except the servant * * *”. If valid, this exclusion would not protect Michael Alcodrаy for his possible liability for the injuries his children received while his passengers.
An owner’s policy of liability insurance, if сertified as proof of financial responsibility, must comply with statutory requirements. MCLA 257.520; MSA 9.2220. Exclusions that cause a certified policy to deviate from statutory requirements are barred.
Lilje v Allstate Insurance Co,
*100
Another panel of this Court has recently reached the opposite conclusion in
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co v Peckham,
"On the basis of the reasoning in Weisberg v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange,36 Mich App 513 ;194 NW2d 193 (1971), and MCLA 500.3009(2); MSA 24.13009(2), we reject the argument that the household exclusion is contrary tо the spirit and intent of the financial responsibility act [MCLA 257.501 et seq.; MSA 9.2201 et seq.].”
This analysis is unacceptable.
Weisberg,
оver a strong dissent by then Judge Levin, upheld an exclusion that рrecluded liability coverage "to bodily injury to any named insured”. The majority reasoned that the exclusion was not contrary to the public policy expressed by thе Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, MCLA 257.1101
et seq.;
MSA 9.2801
et seq.,
because that act is "concerned with the protection of thе rights and claims of third parties when the vehicle owner bеcomes liable to those third parties”.
Equally unsupportive of the exclusion is MCLA 500.3009(2); MSA 24.13009(2). That subsection allows the exclusion of liаbility coverage "when a vehicle is operatеd by a named person”. The household exclusion seеks to avoid liability when certain persons are injured, nоt when a named person is operating the insured vehicle.
The court below was correct in invalidating the exclusion.
Affirmed.
Notes
Pending was an earlier action plaintiff had brought, аs next friend of the minors, against the minors’ father for injuries the minors received on April 6, 1972, while passengers in his automobile.