PLCaliforniamedium
A California auto policy contains a valid named driver exclusion for the insured's adult son with multiple DUIs. The son borrows the covered vehicle without permission and causes an accident injuring a third party. Which statement most accurately describes the policy's response under Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.1(c)?
AThe exclusion is unenforceable as a matter of public policy because California does not permit named-driver exclusions on private passenger auto policies issued in the state
The exclusion is fully enforceable as written: the insurer owes no defense or indemnity for liability arising from the excluded driver's operation, even at minimum limits
CThe insurer must still pay up to the statutory minimum limits as the financial-responsibility primary layer for the injured third party, then properly deny anything in excess of that floor
DThe exclusion is enforceable only as to first-party physical damage on the covered vehicle; third-party liability coverage still attaches notwithstanding the signed exclusion
Why this is the answer
Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.1(c) expressly authorizes a named-individual exclusion on a private passenger auto policy provided the exclusion is signed by the named insured and identifies the excluded individual by name. When the exclusion is in force and the excluded driver operates the covered vehicle, the policy provides NO coverage — no BI, no PD, no defense — regardless of whether use was with or without permission and regardless of the statutory minimum-limits floor. Third parties must look to UM/UIM, their own coverage, or the excluded driver's own assets.
Studying for the California Personal Lines exam?
This question comes from our PL bank. Take a free practice test — no signup.