Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you lend your car to a friend who isn't listed on your insurance policy. This court said that if your policy has a 'named driver exclusion,' your insurance company doesn't have to cover your friend if they get into an accident, even if you gave them permission to drive. It's like the insurance company saying they'll only cover the people they specifically agreed to cover, like a guest list for a party.

For Legal Practitioners

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding the 'named driver exclusion' was unambiguous. This decision reinforces the enforceability of clear, explicit exclusions limiting coverage to specifically named individuals, even when the driver has permissive use. Practitioners should advise clients that such exclusions, if clearly drafted, will likely be upheld, impacting coverage analysis and potential litigation strategies regarding permissive use claims.

For Law Students

This case tests the enforceability of 'named driver exclusions' in auto insurance policies. The court found the exclusion unambiguous, meaning it clearly stated coverage is denied if the driver isn't listed on the policy, irrespective of permissive use. This aligns with the principle that clear contractual terms, including exclusions, are generally upheld, and highlights the importance of precise policy language in insurance law.

Newsroom Summary

A California appeals court ruled that car insurance policies can exclude coverage for drivers not specifically named on the policy, even if they have permission to drive. This decision impacts individuals who borrow cars and may not be covered by the owner's insurance if they cause an accident.

Constitutional Issues

Contract interpretation in insurance lawAmbiguity in insurance policy language

Rule Statements

An insurance policy is a contract, and like any other contract, it must be interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of its terms.

Where an insurance policy is ambiguous, it should be interpreted to provide the coverage that the insured would reasonably expect.

Remedies

Affirmance of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive Preferred Insurance Company.

Judges

• Marsha S. Berzon
• Richard A. Paez
• Jay S. Bybee

Scenario: You borrow a friend's car, and you're not listed on their insurance policy. You get into an accident and cause damage.

Your Rights: Your right to have the car owner's insurance cover the damages depends on the specific wording of their policy. If their policy has a clear 'named driver exclusion,' their insurance likely won't cover you.

What To Do: If you're in this situation, you should immediately check the insurance policy of the car's owner to see if it contains a 'named driver exclusion.' If it does, you may be personally liable for any damages you caused.

Is it legal for my car insurance to refuse to cover a driver I let borrow my car if they aren't listed on my policy?

It depends. If your insurance policy has a clear and unambiguous 'named driver exclusion' that states coverage does not apply to drivers not listed on the policy, then yes, it is likely legal for them to refuse coverage. However, if the exclusion is unclear or ambiguous, or if you are in a jurisdiction with laws that prohibit such exclusions, it may not be legal.

This ruling specifically applies to the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, and Alaska. Laws regarding insurance policy exclusions can vary significantly by state.

For Car owners who lend their vehicles

You need to be aware that if your insurance policy contains a 'named driver exclusion,' lending your car to someone not listed on your policy could leave them (and potentially you, depending on other factors) without insurance coverage in case of an accident. You may need to explicitly add occasional drivers to your policy.

For Drivers who borrow vehicles

If you drive a car you don't own, you cannot assume the owner's insurance will cover you. You should confirm with the owner whether you are a listed driver on their policy or if their policy has a 'named driver exclusion' that would prevent coverage.

For Insurance companies

This ruling validates the use of clearly drafted 'named driver exclusions,' allowing insurers to better control risk and tailor coverage based on specific drivers. Insurers can continue to rely on these exclusions to limit liability when unlisted individuals operate insured vehicles.

Q: What is Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company about?

Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company is a case decided by Ninth Circuit on September 12, 2025.

Q: What court decided Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company was decided by the Ninth Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.

Q: When was Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company decided?

Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company was decided on September 12, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

The citation for Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and what was the main issue in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

The case is Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The central issue was whether an insurance policy's "named driver exclusion" unambiguously excluded coverage for a driver not listed on the policy, even if they had permission to drive the insured vehicle.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company case?

The parties were the plaintiff, Ambrosio, who sought insurance coverage, and the defendant, Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, the insurer that denied coverage based on a policy exclusion.

Q: Which court decided Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, and what was its final ruling?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, upholding the exclusion.

Q: When was the Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company decision issued?

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company was issued on October 26, 2023.

Q: What type of insurance policy was at issue in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

The case involved an automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive Preferred Insurance Company. The specific provision in question was a "named driver exclusion."

Q: Is Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company published?

Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company. Key holdings: The court held that the "named driver exclusion" in the insurance policy was not ambiguous because its language clearly and plainly stated that coverage would not apply to any person operating the insured vehicle if that person was not specifically named in the policy.; The court reasoned that the exclusion's plain language effectively communicated the insurer's intent to limit coverage to only those drivers explicitly listed on the policy, thereby excluding Ambrosio from coverage.; The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, concluding that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that Progressive was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.; The court rejected Ambrosio's argument that the exclusion was unconscionable, finding no evidence of procedural or substantive unconscionability that would render the exclusion unenforceable.; The court determined that the "named driver exclusion" did not violate California public policy, as such exclusions are permissible under California law when clearly stated and not otherwise prohibited..

Q: Why is Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company important?

Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company has an impact score of 20/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the enforceability of clearly written "named driver exclusions" in auto insurance policies in the Ninth Circuit. It signals to insurers that such clauses, when unambiguous, will be upheld, and to policyholders that they must carefully review their policies to understand who is covered to avoid unexpected gaps in protection.

Q: What precedent does Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company set?

Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the "named driver exclusion" in the insurance policy was not ambiguous because its language clearly and plainly stated that coverage would not apply to any person operating the insured vehicle if that person was not specifically named in the policy. (2) The court reasoned that the exclusion's plain language effectively communicated the insurer's intent to limit coverage to only those drivers explicitly listed on the policy, thereby excluding Ambrosio from coverage. (3) The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, concluding that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that Progressive was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (4) The court rejected Ambrosio's argument that the exclusion was unconscionable, finding no evidence of procedural or substantive unconscionability that would render the exclusion unenforceable. (5) The court determined that the "named driver exclusion" did not violate California public policy, as such exclusions are permissible under California law when clearly stated and not otherwise prohibited.

Q: What are the key holdings in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

1. The court held that the "named driver exclusion" in the insurance policy was not ambiguous because its language clearly and plainly stated that coverage would not apply to any person operating the insured vehicle if that person was not specifically named in the policy. 2. The court reasoned that the exclusion's plain language effectively communicated the insurer's intent to limit coverage to only those drivers explicitly listed on the policy, thereby excluding Ambrosio from coverage. 3. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, concluding that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that Progressive was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 4. The court rejected Ambrosio's argument that the exclusion was unconscionable, finding no evidence of procedural or substantive unconscionability that would render the exclusion unenforceable. 5. The court determined that the "named driver exclusion" did not violate California public policy, as such exclusions are permissible under California law when clearly stated and not otherwise prohibited.

Q: What cases are related to Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

Precedent cases cited or related to Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company: Couch on Insurance 3d § 100:1; Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.1(b)(4).

Q: What is a 'named driver exclusion' as interpreted in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

In Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, a 'named driver exclusion' means that the insurance policy will not provide coverage for any person operating the insured vehicle if that person is not specifically listed by name in the policy, regardless of permission.

Q: Did the Ninth Circuit find the 'named driver exclusion' in Ambrosio's policy to be ambiguous?

No, the Ninth Circuit found the 'named driver exclusion' to be clear and unambiguous. The court stated that the policy language explicitly excluded coverage for any person operating the vehicle who was not named on the policy.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply when reviewing the insurance policy exclusion in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

The court applied the standard for reviewing contract provisions, specifically focusing on whether the 'named driver exclusion' was ambiguous. Ambiguous terms are typically construed against the insurer, but here the court found no ambiguity.

Q: What was the core legal reasoning behind the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

The court's reasoning was that the plain language of the 'named driver exclusion' clearly and unambiguously stated that coverage would not apply to any person operating the vehicle if that person was not specifically named in the policy. Therefore, Ambrosio, not being named, was excluded.

Q: Does the permission granted by the policyholder matter for coverage under a 'named driver exclusion' like the one in Ambrosio?

According to the Ninth Circuit's interpretation in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, permission does not matter. The exclusion applies based solely on whether the driver is named on the policy, irrespective of whether they had permission to drive.

Q: What is the significance of the 'named driver exclusion' being unambiguous in this case?

The significance is that unambiguous policy terms are generally enforced as written. Because the exclusion was not ambiguous, the court was bound to uphold Progressive's denial of coverage based on its clear contractual terms.

Q: How does the holding in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company affect an insurer's ability to limit coverage?

The holding reinforces an insurer's right to limit coverage through clear and unambiguous policy language, such as a 'named driver exclusion.' It confirms that insurers can tailor their risk exposure by specifying who is covered to drive a particular vehicle.

Q: Could Ambrosio have pursued a different legal argument, such as bad faith against Progressive?

While not explicitly detailed in the summary, Ambrosio's primary argument focused on the interpretation of the exclusion. A bad faith claim would require demonstrating that Progressive acted unreasonably or with dishonest intent, which is a separate legal standard from contract interpretation.

Q: How does Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company affect me?

This decision reinforces the enforceability of clearly written "named driver exclusions" in auto insurance policies in the Ninth Circuit. It signals to insurers that such clauses, when unambiguous, will be upheld, and to policyholders that they must carefully review their policies to understand who is covered to avoid unexpected gaps in protection. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What does this ruling mean for individuals who drive vehicles they do not own and are not listed on the insurance policy?

This ruling means that if the vehicle's insurance policy contains a 'named driver exclusion,' individuals driving with permission but not listed on the policy may not be covered in the event of an accident, potentially leaving them personally liable for damages.

Q: What is the practical impact of the Ambrosio decision on car insurance policyholders?

Policyholders need to be aware of any 'named driver exclusions' in their policies and ensure that all individuals who regularly drive their insured vehicles are listed on the policy to avoid coverage gaps and potential personal liability.

Q: How might this decision affect insurance companies' underwriting practices?

The decision may encourage insurance companies to more frequently utilize and clearly articulate 'named driver exclusions' in their policies, as it validates their enforceability when clearly written, potentially leading to more customized and risk-based pricing.

Q: What are the potential financial implications for a driver like Ambrosio who is excluded from coverage?

A driver excluded from coverage, like Ambrosio, could be personally responsible for all damages and liabilities arising from an accident, including property damage, medical expenses, and potential lawsuits, which could be financially devastating.

Q: What advice should be given to individuals who frequently lend their car to others?

Individuals who lend their cars should carefully review their insurance policies for 'named driver exclusions' and consider adding any frequent drivers to the policy, or at least confirming that their policy provides permissive use coverage without such exclusions.

Q: What happens next for Ambrosio after the Ninth Circuit's decision?

Following the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of summary judgment for Progressive, Ambrosio's claim for insurance coverage under that policy for the incident in question would be denied. He would likely bear the financial responsibility for any damages resulting from the accident.

Q: How does the Ambrosio decision fit into the broader history of insurance contract interpretation?

The Ambrosio decision aligns with the general legal principle that unambiguous contract terms, including insurance policy exclusions, are to be enforced as written. It reflects a long-standing judicial approach to upholding clear contractual agreements between parties.

Q: Are there historical precedents for courts upholding 'named driver exclusions'?

Yes, courts have historically upheld 'named driver exclusions' when they are clearly and unambiguously stated in the insurance policy. The Ambrosio case is another example of this trend, reinforcing prior judicial interpretations.

Q: How does this case compare to other landmark cases involving insurance coverage disputes?

While many insurance disputes focus on ambiguity or public policy, Ambrosio is notable for its straightforward application of contract law to an unambiguous exclusion. It differs from cases where courts have found exclusions void due to vagueness or conflict with public interest.

Q: What was the docket number in Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company?

The docket number for Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company is 24-2708. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company be appealed?

Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.

Q: How did the case of Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company reach the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?

The case likely originated in a federal district court, where Progressive obtained a grant of summary judgment. Ambrosio then appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the lower court's ruling.

Q: What is summary judgment, and why was it granted to Progressive in this case?

Summary judgment is a ruling by a court that resolves a case without a full trial when there are no genuine disputes of material fact. It was granted because the court found the 'named driver exclusion' unambiguous as a matter of law, meaning Ambrosio could not possibly be covered under its terms.

Q: What procedural issue did the Ninth Circuit address regarding the 'named driver exclusion'?

The primary procedural issue addressed was the district court's grant of summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit reviewed this decision to determine if the 'named driver exclusion' was indeed unambiguous, which was the legal basis for the summary judgment.