This is аn action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act wherein plaintiff seeks to be relieved of liability under an insurance policy issued to defendant Earl B. Selders. Judgment was entered for. plaintiff in the district court; We reverse that. judgment in part.
Plaintiff issued to Earl B. Selders a policy of insurance *344 on an automobile jointly owned by Earl B. Selders and his wife Ila Selders. The policy provided for uninsurеd automobile coverage but limited persons so insured as follows: “The unqualified word ‘insured’ means
“(1) the first person named in the declarations and while residents of his household, his spouse and the relatives of either;
“(2) any other person while occupying an insured automobile; and
“(3) any person, with respect to damages he is еntitled to recover for care or loss of services because of bodily injury to which this coverage applies.”
After issuance of the policy, Earl and Ila Selders separated and lived in separate establishments. A divorce decree was entered awarding the minor children to Ila until further order of the cоurt and requiring Earl to pay for their support. Earl also had visitation privileges. The decree was entered on October 10, 1966, and before it became final, threе of the children died as the result of an accident which occurred on February 3, 1967. The children were passengers in an uninsured automobile involved in a one-cаr accident. The only question presented is whether damages sustained were covered by the policy at the time of the accident. Plaintiff contends that they were not because the children were not then members of their father’s household and he was the only named insured.
It is apparent that after the separation of their parents, the children, residing with their mother, were members of her household and had ceased to be members of their father’s household as he had moved out and was living elsewhere. “In an automobile liability insurance policy, the word ‘household’ in an omnibus clause extending the liability available to assured to other mеmbers of the household means ‘Those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family.’ ” Andrews v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co.,
Defendants have asked for reformation of the policy *345 to include Ila Selders as a named insured. This was denied in the district court and we concur that defendants are not entitled to reformation. Without attempting to detail the lengthy evidence submitted on this point, suffice it to say that defendants have failed to meet the required burden of proof. “In an action for reformation of a written instrument, the burden rests upon the moving party of overcoming the strong presumption arising from the terms of the written instrument. If the proofs are doubtful and unsatisfactory and if there is a failure to overcomе this presumption by testimony entirely plain and convincing beyond reasonable controversy, the writing will be held to express correctly the intention of the parties.
“Where the evidence, in an action for reformation of a written instrument, is sharply and irreconcilably conflicting, it becomes necessary to apply the well-known rule of equity that the evidence must be clear, convincing and satisfactory, and, in consequence, deny a reformation.” Beideck v. National Fire Ins. Co.,
Since Ila Selders was not a named insured and not a member of the household of Earl B. Selders, she is not an additiоnal insured and has no standing such as would permit her to recover under the policy issued by plaintiff. Likewise, the children were not additional insureds and had one been injurеd rather than killed, such child could not have recovered under the policy. The fact that the children were no longer members of their father’s household would аppear, at first glance, to bar recovery by the father. We do not so find. The wrongful death statute, section 30-810, R. R. S. 1943, permits recovery by the parents for the wrongful death of an unmarried minor without issue. This ordinarily entails recovery for services and contributions by the minor both before and after attaining majority. “The meas
*346
ure of .damаges in an action such as we have before us is the pecuniary loss which the parent sustains by reason of being deprived of the child’s services during his minority and the loss оf contributions that might reasonably be expected to be made after reaching his majority.” Dorsey v. Yost,
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that Earl B. Selders was legally entitled to recovеr damages from the uninsured motorist for the death of his children, assuming, as we must for the purposes of this action, that the uninsured motorist was at fault. The policy commits plaintiff: “To .pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsurеd automobile because of bodily injury sustained by the insured; * * It then proceeds to define “insured” as hereinabove set forth. The foregoing clause tends to limit recovery for bodily injury to injuries sustained by one insured. We have found that the children were not members of their father’s household and therefore not listed as “insured” under provision (1). Prоvision (2) is not applicable. Provision (3) would appear to be meaningless if limited to injuries sustained by the insureds. mentioned in provisions (1) and (2). It apparently was intended tо comply with the statutory requirement found in section 60-509.01, R. R. S. 1943, which requires uninsured motorist insurance “for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to *347 recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vеhicles, * * (Emphasis supplied.) As pointed cut, Earl B. Selders, as the father, is legally entitled to recover damages for the death of his children and he is an insured. Provision (3) adds an additional category of “insured.” It provides not only for recovery for injuries sustained by an insured but also for the recovery of other consequential damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from an uninsured motorist.
It is stated in Sterns v. M.F.A. Mutual Insurance Co. (Mo. App.),
*348 As we view the situation, Ila Selders .personally has no right to* recover from plaintiff. The administrator and administratrix of the estates' of the three deceased children have a right of recovery for damages sustained by Earl B. Selders, the father of the children, but are not entitled to recover for damages sustained by the mother Ila Selders. Insofar as the judgment of the district court denied recovery of damages sustained by Earl B. Selders, the judgment is reversed.
Affirmed in part, and in part REVERSED AND REMANDED.