Orange v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1969 |
| Parties | Diane Blshop ORANGE et al., Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Joseph S. Freeland, Paducah, for appellants.
Henry O. Whitlow, Paducah, for appellee.
This appeal presents a case of first impression. The sole issue is whether an injury to a viable unborn child of the insured is an injury to 'a membef of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured' within the operation of a 'family' or 'household' exclusion clause of an tutomobile liability insurance policy. The trial judge held that the unborn infant was within the excluded class; hence, no coverage was afforded by the liability policy. We affirm the trial court's determination of the issue presented.
There is no dispute about the facts. Appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, issued to appellant, Diane Orange, an automobile liability insurance policy. The insured, Diane Orange, is the wife of appellant, Jerald D. Orange, and they reside in the same household. While this policy was in force, Mrs. Orange had an automobile accident. See was driving a car when it left the highway and collided with a tree. Whe was between six and seven months pregnant at the time. As a result of the injury sustained in the collision, the child she was carrying was born dead shortly thereafter.
Mr. Orange, having first secured appointment as administrator of the deceased infant's estate, filed suit against his wife to recover for the wrongful death of their unborn child. KRS 411.130. The insurer thereupon filed a declaratory judgment action against Mrs. Orange (Mr. Orange as administrator of the estate of the deceased unborn child was later made a party) seeking a determination of whether it owed a duty to defend Mrs. Orange in the action then pending against her; the insurer also sought an adjudication of its liability, if any, for the payment up to policy limits of any judgment rendered against Mrs. Orange in the pending wrongful death action.
The insurer relies on an exclusionary clause in the policy providing that the insurance does not apply:
'(i) * * *, to bodily injury to the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured;'
Mrs. Orange and her husband argue that as applied to the exclusion clause the insured's 'family' and 'household' mean the same thing; that 'family' refers to a social, and not a biological unit. They contend that their viable unborn child was not a member of society and would not become one until birth. The cite authority that a widow living with one child constitutes a family, although a widow living alone does not. Cf. Brooks v. Collins, 74 Ky. (11 Bush.) 622, with Davis v. Dean, 236 Ky. 362, 33 S.W.2d 340. From this they reason that a pregnant widow living alone could not constitute a family and they, therefore, insist that an unborn child cannot be a member of a family until it is born...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stern v. Miller
...Hale v. Manion, 189 Kan. 143, 368 P.2d 1 (1962);Kentucky Mitchell v. Couch, 285 S.W.2d 901 (Ky.1955); Orange v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 443 S.W.2d 650 (Ky.App.1969); Rice v. Rizk, 453 S.W.2d 732 (Ky.App.1970);Louisiana Cooper v. Blanck, 39 So.2d 352 (1923, La.App.); Valence v. Loui......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marley
...company from lawsuits where there was a family relationship between the tortfeasor and the injured party. See Orange v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Ky., 443 S.W.2d 650 (1969). One of the first cases to consider the validity of a family exclusion clause in an automobile insurance contrac......
-
Lee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Automobile Insurance Co., 284 Ala. 687, 228 So.2d 4 (1969); Banner Insurance Company v. Avella, supra; Orange v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 443 S.W.2d 650 (Ky.1969).5 See Tenopir v. State Farm Mutual Co., supra, 403 F.2d at 536; Fuchs v. Cheeley, supra, 173 N.W.2d at 364.6 The p......
-
Miller v. Highlands Ins. Co., 75--1446
...323 F.Supp. 529 (D.D.C.1971); Chrisafogeorgis v. Brandenberg, 55 Ill.2d 368, 304 N.E.2d 88 (1973); Orange v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 443 S.W.2d 650 (Ky.1969); Rice v. Rizk, 453 S.W.2d 732 (Ky.App.1970); O'Neill v. Morse, 385 Mich. 130, 188 N.W.2d 785 (1971); Libbee v. Pe......