those persons related to and living with the negligent driver, from receiving financial protection under an insurance policy containing such a clause.... This exclusion becomes particularly disturbing when viewed in light of the fact that this class of victims is the one most frequently exposed to the potential negligence of the named insured. Typical family relations require family members to ride together on the way to work, church, school, social functions, or family outings. Consequently, there is no practical method by which the class of persons excluded from protection by this provision may conform their activities so as to avoid exposure to the risk of riding with someone who, as to them, is uninsured. Id,.; see also Lewis v. West Am. Ins. Co., 927 S.W.2d 829, 835 (Ky.1996), (<HOLDING>). Based upon this Court’s specific statements
holding automobile exclusion in general liability policy did not apply because plaintiffs claim of negligent supervision and training was a separate and distinct theory of recovery from the use of an automobile holding household or family exclusion clause in automobile insurance policy contravenes statutory requirements found in utahs nofault statute as to minimum benefits which must be provided to all persons sustaining personal injuries holding that household exclusion clauses in policies of automobile liability insurance are contrary to public policy recognizing stacking of separate household policies but declining to permit stacking where three household vehicles are insured under a single policy holding that thirdparty claimants are intended beneficiaries under optional automobile liability insurance policies