In Bethel v. Security National Ins. Co., No. 3D05-2881, 2006 WL 3734270 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. Dec. 20. 2006), a Florida appeals court ruled that a passenger involved in an auto accident did not meet the definition of “member of the family” under an auto policy's household exclusion.

 

Gregory Bethel was driving his Chevy Tahoe and was in an accident that injured his passenger, Laika Fernandez. Fernandez was Bethel 's wife's sister who lived with the Bethels at the time of the accident. When Fernandez moved into the house, and at the time of the accident, she had her own car and maintained her own auto insurance on the vehicle.

 

Fernandez sought the $100,000 limit on Gregory's policy, but Security National denied coverage based on the household exclusion, which states: “We do not provide Liability Coverage:…For bodily injury, property damage or death sustained by any insured or any member of the family of an insured residing in the same household as the insured.”

 

The policy also defined family member as “a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household, including a ward or foster child, provided said family member does not own a private passenger auto.”

 

The court, giving the words their ordinary meanings, concluded that family member is the same thing as member of the family. Fernandez would not be considered a family member under the policy's definition, the court said. The court also said that since the household exclusions applied only to members of the family, and by definition Fernandez was not a family member, then the household exclusion would not apply in this case.

 

The court said, “Where there are two different interpretations which may be given to the words used in an insurance policy, the interpretation which allows the greater indemnity will govern.” The court concluded, “Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of these words indicates that the household exclusion does not apply to Laika as a 'member of the family.'”