Colorado § 10-4-630 - Exclusion of named driver.

§ 10-4-630. Exclusion of named driver.

(1) In any case where an insurer is authorized under this part 6 to cancel or refuse to renew or increase the premiums on an automobile liability insurance policy under which more than one person is insured because of the claim experience or driving record of one or more but less than all of the persons insured under the policy, the insurer shall in lieu of cancellation, nonrenewal, or premium increase offer to continue or renew the insurance but to exclude from coverage, by name, the person whose claim experience or driving record would have justified the cancellation or nonrenewal. The premiums charged on any such policy excluding a named driver shall not reflect the claims, experience, or driving record of the excluded named driver.

(2) With respect to any person excluded from coverage under this section, the policy may provide that the insurer shall not be liable for damages, losses, or claims arising out of this operation or use of the insured motor vehicle, whether or not such operation or use was with the express or implied permission of a person insured under the policy.

Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 1568, § 3, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section was originally numbered as § 10-4-627 in House Bill 03-1188 but has been renumbered on revision for ease of location.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since this section is similar to § 10-4-721 as it existed prior to the 2003 repeal of part 7 of article 4 of this title, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

This section unambiguously authorizes an automobile insurer to exclude from coverage all liability arising from use of an automobile by a specifically named driver. Sersion v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 757 P.2d 1169 (Colo. App. 1988); Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Progressive Mtn. Ins. Co., 1 P.3d 250 (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd, 27 P.3d 343 (Colo. 2001).

Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants as insured's son was not an insured driver of the automobile. Sersion v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 757 P.2d 1169 (Colo. App. 1988).

An insurer may exclude a named driver from all coverage, including UM/UIM coverage, while the excluded driver is operating the vehicle. The exclusion of the named driver extends to preclude recovery by a resident relative passenger of the named driver. Massingill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 176 P.3d 816 (Colo. App. 2007); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Csaszar, 893 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2018).

Public policy not violated for failure to carry uninsured motorist coverage for a particularly excluded driver or his or her innocent passenger. Lopez v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 890 P.2d 192 (Colo. App. 1994).

Exclusion of a claim for negligent entrustment from an automobile policy is authorized under this section. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Graham, 860 P.2d 566 (Colo. App. 1993).

Exclusion endorsement which provided that insurer would not be liable for damages, losses, or claims arising out of the operation or use of the insured motor vehicle by the named excluded person, which tracked the language of this section, was not ambiguous and therefore enforceable. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Graham, 860 P.2d 566 (Colo. App. 1993).

Summary judgment in favor of insured defendant was proper where plaintiff was injured while a passenger in a vehicle driven by a person specifically excluded from insurance coverage under this section, and no obligation to provide uninsured motorist coverage exists. Lopez v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 890 P.2d 192 (Colo. App. 1994).

Exclusion endorsement in the policy along with the declaration page referencing the wife as excluded from "household drivers" unambiguously excluded the insured's wife as a household member from all coverage, including UM/UIM and Medpay coverage, as part of the bargained-for exchange between the husband and the insurer. The unequivocal effect of the exclusion endorsement is to exclude all coverage and all liability or obligation of any kind for the operation or use of any vehicle by the wife. Therefore, husband's insurance was not liable for wife's medical injuries caused by the actions of an uninsured or underinsured driver. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Kretzer, 2023 COA 94, 541 P.3d 613.

Under subsection (2), the exclusion of coverage under the insured's policy for his wife's injuries applies even though the excluded wife was not driving one of the husband's insured vehicles. In reliance on and extending the rationale in Massingill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins, 176 P.3d 816 (Colo. App. 2007), it would be absurd to interpret the statute to allow an insurer to deny coverage if the excluded named driver were operating an insured vehicle but require coverage if the excluded named driver were operating any other vehicle. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Kretzer, 2023 COA 94, 541 P.3d 613.