A California auto policy lists two vehicles, each with 100/300 BI and 100/300 UM/UIM. The named insured executed a § 11580.1(c) named-driver exclusion against her husband. The husband, a permissive user despite the exclusion, is struck by an uninsured motorist while driving the family's second vehicle and sustains $250,000 in proven damages. He demands UM benefits, arguing the named-driver exclusion does not bar HIS UM claim and that he can stack 100/300 plus 100/300 to recover $200,000. Which response is correct under Cal. Ins. Code §§ 11580.1(c), 11580.2, and 11580.2(p)?

Why this is the answer

Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.1(c) authorizes a named-driver exclusion that bars LIABILITY (BI/PD) and certain physical damage coverages when the excluded individual operates the covered auto. The statute does NOT extend the exclusion to first-party UM/UIM benefits owed to the excluded driver if he otherwise qualifies as an 'insured' (e.g., a resident relative or permissive user). However, the anti-stacking rule of § 11580.2(p) caps UM recovery at the per-accident limit applicable to the involved vehicle, here 100/300. The husband therefore recovers $100,000 — not $200,000 (no stacking) and not $0 (UM is preserved).