Insurance Is Like Marriage. You Pay, Pay, Pay, And You Never Get Anything Back. — Al Bundy.

After a passenger in the insured’s car obtained a $333,300 judgment against the insured, the insurance company filed an action seeking a declaration it had no obligation due to the policy’s “resident exclusion,” which stated there was no coverage for bodily injury to anyone inhabiting the same dwelling as the insured. The trial court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary adjudication of the issue of whether the policy provided coverage for the passenger’s judgment. In reversing, the appellate court listed the permissible exclusions under , Insurance Code section 11580, subdivision (c), and the court quoted: “Any exclusion not expressly authorized by section 11580.1 is therefore impermissible and invalid.” One of the permissible statutory exclusions states: “(5) Liability for bodily injury to an insured or liability for bodily injury to an insured whenever the ultimate benefits of that indemnification accrue directly or indirectly to an insured.” The appellate court went on to discuss that case law has developed the Insurance Code section 11580, subdivision (c), subsection (5), exclusion to the point that a policy may exclude a resident relative. In the present case, however, the injured passenger was a college roommate and not a relative. The appellate court stated: “We conclude no public policy consideration or legal authority justifies denying [the passenger/roommate’s] claim against the named insured of the policy. We find no significance in the mere status of cohabitation.” (Mercury Casualty Company v. Hung Chu (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; September 24, 2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1432, [178 Cal.Rptr.3d 144].)