Cimarron Insurance Co. v. Croyle

(specially concurring in part; dissenting in part).

I

I specially concur in approximately one-half of the majority opinion, i.e., declaring Cimarron’s household exclusion in the liability portion of the policy invalid as being violative of this state’s public policy.

II

Joining our immediate past Chief Justice’s dissent in toto on the balance of the majority opinion, I likewise dissent to limiting the family exclusion clause “void” — up to $25,000.00. Where is the magic in the figure $25,000 when discussing public policy?

Freedom to contract. For whom? Certainly not, as an example, for the rights…