The issue in this appeal is whether the “family exclusion” clause in appellants’ homeowners’ insurance policy is valid *301 with the result that appellants will be without insurance coverage for the jury-determined liability of appellant/mother for injuries sustained by her minor son.
Appellants’ son, Adam Neil, was permanently injured when he was struck near his home by an automobile driven by Conrad Guenzel. Appellants brought a civil action against Guenzel for Adam’s injuries, and Guenzel subsequently joined appellants as additional defendants on the grounds of negligent supervision of Adam. After they were joined in the action against Guenzel, the Neils requested that appellee, Allstate, represent them, by counsel, in the civil action and provide coverage for any liability which they might incur as a result of their joinder in the negligence action as additional defendants. 1 Allstate informed the Neils that the terms of their homeowners’ policy excluded Adam from coverage, and therefore, they would provide no defense in the civil action. Specifically, Allstate cited the following provision which is the subject of this appeal:
We [Allstate] do not cover bodily injury to an insured person____
The definition of “insured person” under the policy was: “Insured Person” — means you [policyholder] and, if a resident of your household, any relative and any dependent person in your care.
After Allstate refused to defend them, appellants brought the instant action for declaratory judgment. In their complaint, appellants sought to have the “family exclusion” clause of their policy, upon which Allstate had relied in refusing coverage and a defense, declared invalid and void as against public policy. Appellee sought, by motion, an order of summary judgment, citing the terms of the policy. On December 18, 1987, appellee’s motion for summary *302 judgment was granted, and appellants then filed the instant timely appeal.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit against Guenzel for Adam’s injuries proceeded. The jury in that case returned a verdict of $250,000 in Adam’s favor, which was apportioned as follows: twenty-five percent attributable to Conrad Guenzel, forty percent attributable to Arlene Neil, thirty-five percent attributable to Thomas and Susan Lordi, and zero percent attributable to the Borough of Monroeville. As a result of this apportionment of negligence, appellant Arlene Neil is liable for her son’s injuries in the amount of $100,000.
Since this case comes to us on the granting of a motion for summary judgment, we will first look to the standards under which such relief is granted. Summary judgment should not be entered unless the case is free from doubt.
Weiss v. Keystone Mack Sales, Inc.,
It has also recently been established that summary judgment is available in a declaratory judgment action.
Darlark v. Henry S. Lehr, Inc.,
*303
With these principles in mind, we turn to an examination of appellants’ contentions on appeal. Appellants argue that the family exclusion clause contained in their policy of homeowners’ insurance is against the public policy of this Commonwealth and should be declared void. They submit that judicial abolition of the doctrines of parental immunity and interspousal immunity from tort liability requires such a declaration.
See Falco v. Pados,
In
Mamlin v. Genoe,
“It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in [declaring that policy to be against public policy].”
Id.,
Generally, the courts will look to two sources to ascertain public policy in a given area: legislative mandate and judicial precedent.
Guardian Life Insurance Company v. Zerance,
In
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Williams,
State Farm paid the plaintiff the $10,000 coverage limits under his wife’s policy, but although plaintiff’s injuries apparently exceeded $10,000, the company refused to make any payments under plaintiff’s own policy. Plaintiff then requested arbitration, and the arbitrator denied coverage on the basis of a policy provision which prohibited all recovery by plaintiff under his policy if the injury was sustained while he occupied another motor vehicle owned by a resident of the same household, and which was not an insured vehicle under his own policy. The Superior Court affirmed.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, on the basis that the exclusionary provision of the insurance policy conflicted with the provisions of 40 P.S. § 2000, which requires insurance protection to be provided for bodily injury or death to insured persons who are legally entitled to recover damages from the owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles. The court reasoned that the exclusionary provision of the State Farm policy was unenforceable because it permitted a diminution of the protec
*305
tion afforded by the statute below the statutory limits.
Williams, supra,
The instant case is not analogous. Unlike the area of automobile insurance, which is legislatively regulated, there is no legislative enactment in Pennsylvania governing or requiring that insurance companies provide a specified level of insurance coverage to homeowners. Thus, although we do not deny our power to hold unenforceable an insurance policy provision as did the court in Williams, appellants have not cited and we know of no legislative enactment in the field of homeowners’ insurance which would require voiding the family exclusion provision herein on the grounds that it violates public policy.
Nor have we found in judicial precedent a firm public policy to void family exclusion provisions. In fact, our appellate decisions have upheld such clauses.
See Puller v. Puller,
In
Paiano v. Home Insurance Co.,
Similarly, in
Groff v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,
Under the terms of the policy, State Farm is required to provide a defense against claims within, or arguably within, the liability coverages of the policy. But the terms of the standard “household exclusion” contained in the plaintiff’s policy unmistakably exclude from coverage claims for bodily injury sustained by an “insured” as defined in the policy; and plaintiffs’ minor son is plainly an “insured” within that definition, since he is a “relative” and resides in the same household as the named insureds. Thus, the policy unambiguously excludes cov *307 erage, and the defendant is not required to defend the state court action.
Counsel for plaintiff argues that this is a case of first impression, and that even if the policy unambiguously excludes coverage, the exclusion is contrary to public policy and should not be given effect. I find these arguments puzzling: see, e.g., Paiano v. Home Insurance Co.,253 Pa.Super. 519 ,385 A.2d 460 (1978) and the many cases there cited. As the courts in all of those cases recognized, private parties are generally free to decide what insurance coverage they want and will pay for, and insurance companies are free to decide what risks to undertake and what risks to reject. I am unaware of any public policy interests which would be served by mandating insurance of parents against personal injury claims brought by their minor children.
The court in Groff granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment, holding that “the clear language of the policy and the state of the decisional law of Pennsylvania” required such an outcome.
In addition, Hack itself noted with approval the existence and validity of family exclusion clauses. In analyzing the continuing validity of the doctrine of interspousal immunity in tort, the Hack court noted that one of the justifications for the doctrine had been the concept of prevention of collusive suits between spouses. The court rejected the possibility of collusion as a persuasive reason for continued adherence to the immunity doctrine. Instead, it noted that “[t]he laws of contract and evidence are ample protection against any danger of fraud or collusion,” and cited for this proposition the Puller and Great American Insurance Co. cases, supra, in which family exclusion provisions had been explicitly upheld. 2 Thus, one of the Hack court’s reasons for abrogating the interspousal immunity doctrine was the existence and validity of family exclusion clauses in insur *308 anee policies which prevent the possibility of collusive suits. Appellants’ argument for invalidating the family exclusion provision on the basis of Hack’s (and Falco’s) abandonment of the tort immunity doctrines thus flies in the face of the express reasoning of our highest court.
We also note, as appellee has contended, that other states in which the tort immunity doctrines have been rejected have not taken the additional step of declaring invalid the family exclusion clause in homeowners’ policies. For example, in
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Clendening,
The court rejected each of these arguments. They held that the exclusions in the policy were “plain in their position, labeling and capitalization” and that the language of the exclusion was clear and unambiguous. With regard to appellants’ public policy argument, the court held there was “no authority either in court decision or legislative enactment” to suggest that the exclusion was against public policy. The issue of intra-family torts was also addressed:
Appellants stress that the family exclusion clause is contrary to public policy since it may prevent a family member from collecting damages for injuries inflicted by another family member. The practice of excluding family members from coverage allegedly thwarts the express *309 policy against immunity for intra-family torts, (citation omitted).
However, the implementation of the exclusionary clause does not deprive Juanita Clendening of her lawsuit since she may still sue her husband and recover from available assets. The insurance carrier need not insure risks arising from intra-family torts unless it chooses to do so. Where, as here, the exclusionary clause is clear, plain and unambiguous and there is no statutory prohibition, there is no public policy reason to prohibit insurance contracts such as these, (citation omitted).
The court in Clendening also rejected appellants’ contention that the family exclusion clause was invalid unless the Legislature authorized it. Appellants had argued that the legislature had specifically authorized family exclusion clauses in fire and automobile insurance policies, which had been codified in the California Insurance Code. However, the Clendening court held that
[t]he absence of such a statute in the area of homeowners insurance is not authority for the claim made here. “The right of a company to limit its contract of coverage may not be questioned ..., provided the limitation is not prohibited by public policy or statute.” (citation omitted).
In
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Elwell,
Appellants also contend that the family exclusion clause in their homeowners’ policy frustrates their reason
*311
able expectations as purchasers of the policy. They cite
State Automobile Insurance Association v. Anderson,
The argument that an insured’s reasonable expectations have been frustrated has been rejected where the provisions of a particular insurance policy are clear and unambiguous.
Standard Venetian Blind Company v. American Empire Insurance,
Anderson, cited by appellants, did not disapprove of this principle, but found on the facts of that case that the policy exclusion at issue, which centered upon the interpretation of the word “employee” in the policy, was not clear and unambiguous. Unlike Anderson, the policy provisions herein are clear. The Neils’ homeowners’ policy clearly excludes bodily injury coverage to an “insured person,” and that term is defined in unambiguous language as including “any relative and any dependent person in [the policyholder’s] care,” if that person is a resident of the policyholder’s household. In upholding the validity of the policy exclusion in this case, we cite with approval the language of the court in Standard Venetian Blind, supra:
*312 Application of these precepts to the insurance contract in this case requires the conclusion that Venetian is bound by the agreement it signed. As found by the court of common pleas, the exclusions at issue are “plain and free of ambiguity,” and could have been readily comprehended by [insured] had he chosen to read them ... [T]o allow Venetian to avoid application of the clear and unambiguous policy limitations in these circumstances would require us to rewrite the parties’ written contract.”
We similarly decline to rewrite the contract of the parties. The policy reasons and expectations of appellants are simply insufficient to persuade us to take the radical measure of rewriting the policy by invalidating the exclusion clause. To do so on the grounds appellants have suggested 4 would disturb established principles of law re *313 garding the rights and liabilities of parties who freely contract, and would place insurance companies in the impracticable situation of insuring losses which they have specifically not contemplated and for which they have not funded reserves. As the courts of other states have indicated, the family exclusion clause does not reinstate the common law immunity between parent and child and between spouses; it rather excludes insurance proceeds as a source of recovery between such parties when the insured has purchased a policy with such an exclusion. See e.g., State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Emerson, supra.
ORDER AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Also joined as additional defendants in the action against Guenzel were Thomas and Susan Lordi, owners of a nearby property upon which was some shrubbery which Guenzel contended obscured his vision while driving, and the Borough of Monroeville, which Guenzel contended was negligent in failing to enforce its ordinance requiring shrubbery to be no higher than a specified height.
. The
Hack
court also noted that the possibility of collusion as a justification for continued adherence to the parental immunity doctrine had been rejected in
Falco.
.
Accord Porter v. Farmers Insurance Co.,
. Appellants have also contended that the family exclusion clause should not be enforced because the insurance contract between these parties was a contract of adhesion. While insurance contracts are generally considered adhesion contracts, such a categorization does not, by itself, render an insurance contract unenforceable.
Bishop v. Washington,
We do not find the terms of the (instant policy unreasonably favorable to one of the parties. First, the terms of the exclusionary provision are stated in clear and precise language and are "not buried in fine print deep in the insurance contract."
Bishop v. Washington, supra,