The Supreme Court of Alaska ruled that an unmarried “spouse” was not covered under an auto insurance policy in Cole v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. S-11460, 2006 WL 204990 ( Alaska Jan.27, 2006).

 

Homer Cole and Annette Mayac divorced and later got back together, but did not remarry. Cole did not have a driver's license, so their car was registered, titled, and insured in Mayac's name only.

 

Cole was struck by a car and severely injured while walking along a street. He had been riding in Mayac's car a short time before he was struck. He sought coverage for his injuries from Mayac's auto insurer, State Farm.

 

Mayac's policy provided medical payments and uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage for the named insured and his or her spouse. “Spouse” was defined in the policy as “your husband or wife who resides primarily with you.” State Farm denied coverage for Cole's claim.

 

Cole provided two reasons that he should be covered under Mayac's policy as her spouse. First, he argued that the policy's terms were ambiguous and should be construed to protect his reasonable expectations.

 

The court listed four factors used in determining the reasonable expectations an insurance policy generates:

 

(1) the disputed policy language;

(2) other related policy language;

(3) relevant intrinsic evidence;

(4) precedent interpreting similar provisions.

 

The court, after considering these factors, stated that “we find no plausible basis for concluding that a reasonable purchaser of the disputed policy would have expected 'spouse' to include a live-in companion who was not legally married.”

 

Cole's second contention was that the “spousal coverage must be broadly construed for reasons of public policy.” Cole specifically pointed to the Alaska Human Rights Act, which bars marital status discrimination. The court, though, said that “Cole has neglected to advance any facts establishing a prohibited pattern or practice of marital status discrimination.” The court also pronounced the public policy argument to be “both factually and legally groundless.”

 

Thus, the court ruled that neither argument showed that the State Farm policy provided coverage for an unmarried “spouse.”