Can you exclude a driver from car insurance? Named driver exclusion rules in 16 states, read from the statutes

In most of the sixteen jurisdictions compared below, yes: you and your insurer can sign an endorsement that removes coverage whenever one named person drives your car. Virginia’s statute voids that kind of endorsement on an auto liability policy, Wisconsin bars excluding a relative of the insured, and Utah, South Carolina, Florida and Pennsylvania attach conditions about the excluded driver’s own insurance. Michigan, often listed as a state that bans exclusions, expressly allows one in MCL 500.3009(2).

Michigan’s statute also spells out the cost. The exclusion is valid only if the policy carries a warning that when the named excluded person drives, “all liability coverage is void,” “no one is insured,” and the owners and others legally responsible for that driver “remain fully personally liable.” Sixteen jurisdictions are sorted below from statute text read on official legislature sites on 2026-10-30, and the states that could not be confirmed are named rather than filled in. This is general information, not legal advice; a licensed agent or attorney in your state can read a specific endorsement against your facts.

Estimates and published averages, not a quote. Not insurance advice. State rules and insurer rules vary. Confirm requirements with your state insurance regulator or a licensed agent in your state.

The five-state ban list, checked against each statute

Search results for this question tend to repeat one short list of states that supposedly prohibit named driver exclusions: Kansas, Michigan, New York, Virginia and Wisconsin. The list usually arrives without a citation. Each of the five has its own statute governing what an auto liability policy must cover, so each claim can be checked against the official text. Virginia's holds up for the auto policy, Kansas's and New York's fit their statutes only by omission, one holds up only for relatives, and one is plainly wrong.

The Michigan error matters because it points readers in the wrong direction. A Michigan parent who reads that exclusions are banned might assume a son or daughter who drives the family car will be covered no matter what was signed, when the statute says the opposite and requires the insurer to print a warning saying so. The Kansas and New York rows show the other limit of a short list: the rule there comes from what the statute requires every policy to cover, and the insurer’s room to exclude depends on how courts have read that requirement. The Michigan rate and rules page and the Virginia rate and rules page carry the rest of each state’s required coverages.

Sixteen jurisdictions sorted by what the statute requires

The table below groups each state by the condition its statute places on a named driver exclusion. Three groups emerged from the text. In the first, the statute bars the exclusion, bars it for relatives, or leaves it out of a closed list. In the second, the exclusion is tied to proof that the excluded person carries insurance or has given up a license. In the third, a written agreement is enough, sometimes with a notice, a reason requirement or a duty to offer. A fourth group that summaries often describe, states that allow an exclusion only above the minimum limits, did not appear in any statute read; West Virginia’s history, below, shows why.

Two patterns run through the third group. Most of these statutes make the exclusion an agreement the named insured signs, so a policyholder cannot later say the insurer imposed it silently; Oregon requires the signature of each named insured, and Utah requires the excluded person’s consent too. And several tie the exclusion to an insurer’s right to drop the policy: Maryland and Texas use it as the alternative to cancellation, which is why the endorsement often appears right after a household member’s license is suspended or a young driver racks up claims. The cancellation versus nonrenewal guide covers the notice rules that apply when the insurer goes the other way.

West Virginia’s reversal: a minimum-limits rule written out of the law in 2015

A common description of named driver exclusions says some states honor them only above the state minimum limits, so an excluded driver still has bare-minimum liability coverage under the owner’s policy. None of the 16 statutes in the table creates that rule. Where it exists, it has come from courts reading the financial responsibility laws, and West Virginia shows what can happen next.

West Virginia Code 33-6-31h, added by House Bill 2790 in the 2015 regular session, records the history in its own findings. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, in a 1987 decision reported at 177 W. Va. 763, “interpreted chapter seventeen-d of this code to require insurers to provide minimum financial responsibility limits of coverage to excluded drivers.” The legislature found that this left consumers who were not excluded “negatively impacted,” and declared: “It is not the intent of the legislature to require insurers to provide minimum financial responsibility limits of coverage to excluded drivers.”

Subsection (c) then sets the current rule. When a person is specifically excluded by a restrictive endorsement, the insurer “is not required to provide any coverage, including both the duty to indemnify and the duty to defend,” for damages from that person’s use of any motor vehicle, notwithstanding the financial responsibility chapter. The companion omnibus section, 33-6-31, carves out “any persons specifically excluded by any restrictive endorsement attached to the policy” from the permissive-user requirement.

The practical lesson reaches beyond West Virginia. A minimum-limits floor built by courts can be removed by a statute, and a summary written before the change keeps repeating the old rule. Missouri is the state most often cited for a minimum-limits floor; its rule comes from appellate decisions, and the regulator’s 1998 bulletin explaining them has since been withdrawn as obsolete, so this page leaves Missouri unclassified until an official court text is read. If you live in a state not in the table, ask the insurer in writing whether an exclusion on your policy leaves any liability coverage at all while the excluded person drives, and keep the answer.

Proof the excluded driver is insured: Utah, South Carolina, Florida and Pennsylvania

Four statutes look past the household that signs the exclusion to the person being excluded. The idea behind them is that an exclusion should not create an uninsured driver on the road. They differ on who must show what, and when.

Utah Code 31A-22-302.5 is the most detailed. A policy may exclude a resident of the named insured’s household, including one temporarily living elsewhere, or a person who “usually or customarily operates the motor vehicle.” The exclusion is effective only if, at the time it is made, each excluded person satisfies Utah’s owner’s or operator’s security requirement “independently of the named insured’s proof” of security, both the named insured and the excluded person give written consent, and the insurer lists each excluded name on the evidence of insurance it sends to an additional insured or loss payee. The insurance condition drops away when the excluded person’s license has been denied, suspended or revoked, which is the situation where the exclusion is most often wanted. The exclusion stays in force until the insurer removes it.

South Carolina Code 38-77-340 requires a written endorsement on a form approved by the director, binding on every insured once the named insured signs. No natural person may be excluded unless the named insured declares in the agreement either that the excluded person’s driver’s license “has been turned in to the Department of Motor Vehicles” or that “an appropriate policy of liability insurance or other security” has been executed in that person’s name. The section was last amended by Act 241 of 2004, effective January 1, 2005.

Florida Statutes 627.747, added by chapter 2021-96, puts the obligation on the excluded driver rather than making it a condition the insurer checks. A policy may exclude an identified person who is not a named insured, with the named insured’s written consent, from personal injury protection for that person’s own injuries, property damage liability, bodily injury liability, uninsured motorist coverage for that person’s damages, and any optional coverage. Subsection (3) then says a driver excluded this way “must” establish and show proof of financial responsibility under chapter 324 and maintain personal injury protection security. Florida’s financial responsibility amounts in 324.021(7) are $10,000 for bodily injury to one person, $20,000 for two or more, and $10,000 for property damage in one crash.

Pennsylvania’s rule sits in 75 Pa.C.S. 1718(c), which lets an insurer or the first named insured exclude a person from benefits under the policy when that person was excluded under the state’s automobile policy act, or when the first named insured asked for the exclusion. The second route “shall only apply if the excluded person is insured on another policy of motor vehicle liability insurance.” The section governs first-party benefits under sections 1711 and 1712, and the liability side of a Pennsylvania exclusion was not read for this page.

Florida adds limits on why an exclusion may be used. Subsection (2) bars an exclusion when the person is injured while not operating a vehicle, when the person is excluded solely because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, pregnancy or marital status, or when the exclusion conflicts with the insurer’s filed underwriting rules. The Florida car insurance rules guide covers the PIP layer the excluded driver must buy, and the South Carolina rate and rules page and Pennsylvania rate and rules page show each state’s minimum limits.

Signed-agreement states and the conditions written into them

A written agreement is enough in eight of the states checked, but the statutes rarely stop at the signature. Each attaches its own condition, and those details decide whether a particular exclusion holds up.

Michigan makes the notice the test of validity. Under MCL 500.3009(2), an exclusion “is not valid unless” the statutory warning appears on the face of the policy or the declarations page or certificate, and on the certificate of insurance. The warning says that when the named excluded person drives, all liability coverage is void and no one is insured, and that owners and others legally responsible for that driver remain fully personally liable. Those are high stakes in a state whose default liability floor under 3009(1), for policies issued after July 1, 2020, is $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident for bodily injury, with an option to buy as little as $50,000 and $100,000 under subsection (5).

California Insurance Code 11580.1(d)(1), read in a Wayback copy of the official page saved 2026-01-19, lets the insurer and any named insured agree that coverage and the duty to defend do not apply while a vehicle is operated by “a natural person or persons designated by name.” The agreement binds every insured and “every third-party claimant,” and it covers claims of negligently entrusting the car to that person. The insurer keeps a narrow duty to defend the named insured when the excluded person lives in the same household, is sued jointly with the named insured after driving the named insured’s car, and has a separate auto policy of their own that does not defend the named insured. An agreement signed more than 60 days after the policy starts takes effect from the date it is signed.

Arizona’s A.R.S. 28-4009(A)(3) needs only a written agreement between the named insured and the insurer to exclude a person “designated by name,” and the agreement carries over at each renewal until the insurer agrees in writing to cover that person again. Oregon’s ORS 742.450(6) and (7) allow excluding any person other than the named insured, but only for the person’s driving record or a reason the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services sets by rule, and each named insured must sign a statement that the policy will not provide the required coverage when that person drives. Connecticut’s 38a-335(d) frames it from the household side: liability coverage applies to the named insured and resident relatives unless a relative “is specifically excluded by endorsement.”

Maryland turns the exclusion into a required offer. Under Insurance Article 27-609(b)(1), when an insurer could cancel, nonrenew or raise the premium on a private passenger policy because of the claims or driving record of some but not all insured drivers, it “shall offer” to continue the policy while excluding all coverage when the named driver operates a vehicle. Subsection (d) lets that endorsement exclude coverage for the excluded driver, the vehicle owner, family members in the household, and any other person, except the personal injury protection and uninsured motorist coverage required by sections 19-505 and 19-509 when that coverage is not available under another policy. Subsection (e) bars the insurer from charging a premium that reflects the excluded driver’s record.

Texas uses the same trade in narrower form. Insurance Code 551.104(d) allows an insurer to cancel a personal auto policy when the license of the named insured, a household member or a regular driver is suspended or revoked, but not if the named insured consents to an endorsement ending coverage for that person. The Texas car insurance laws page lists the other cancellation grounds and notice periods, and the Maryland rate and rules page carries Maryland’s required PIP and uninsured motorist amounts.

Owner liability when an excluded driver crashes: four scenarios

An exclusion removes the insurer from the picture. It does not remove the owner. Several states make a car owner liable for injuries caused by someone driving with permission, and when the driver is excluded, the owner faces that liability without the policy behind it. The four scenarios below are made up to show the mechanics; they are not predictions of any claim, and each assumes the exclusion was validly signed.

The four rows show a spread from no protection to full protection. In Michigan and California, a valid exclusion leaves the owner without a defense or a payment from the policy, and Michigan’s presumption of consent for family members makes it hard for a parent to argue the car was taken without permission. Florida softens the owner’s exposure with caps but adds a larger layer whenever the excluded driver carries thin limits, and a $10,000/$20,000 policy is well under the $500,000 trigger. New York reaches the same owner liability but requires the policy to stand behind it, which is the logic of a state with no named driver exception in its permissive-user section.

Owner liability is also why an exclusion and a borrowed car interact badly. If the excluded person drives a friend’s car instead, the friend’s policy is usually the first to respond, and the guide to whether insurance follows the car or the driver explains the order. An excluded driver who needs to drive regularly can buy a policy in their own name, or a non-owner policy if they own no car, which is also how Utah, South Carolina and Florida expect the excluded person to be insured.

Utah’s suspended-license rule: when the exclusion reaches the named insured

Utah’s statute goes further than any of the other 15 in what happens if an excluded driver with a suspended license drives anyway. Under 31A-22-302.5(5), if the excluded person’s license has been denied, suspended, revoked or disqualified and the person then drives, the exclusion removes all liability coverage and all physical damage coverage “without regard to the comparative fault of the excluded driver.” It also proportionately reduces benefits payable to the excluded person and to any named insured under uninsured motorist, underinsured motorist, personal injury protection and first-party medical coverage, to the extent the excluded driver was at fault. If the excluded driver was 50% or more at fault, both the excluded driver and any named insured are barred from those benefits entirely.

Take a stated example. A Utah parent signs an exclusion for a son whose license is suspended. The son drives the parent’s car with the parent as a passenger, and a crash is found 60% the son’s fault and 40% the other driver’s. The parent’s own car is not covered for collision under the policy, because the exclusion removes physical damage coverage. Because the son was 60% at fault, which is 50% or more, the parent as named insured is barred from the policy’s PIP and first-party medical benefits for the parent’s own injuries, even though the parent was only a passenger. Had the son been 30% at fault, those benefits would be reduced by 30%.

Subsection (6) adds one protection for the excluded person: the exclusion does not apply when that person is a non-driving passenger or a pedestrian. Utah’s separate section 31A-22-303(7) is a different mechanism, letting a policy limit coverage to the minimum limits when the insured declared that a person would not drive the car and that person is then found guilty of driving under the influence, impaired driving or a related offense. It is not a named driver exclusion and should not be read as one. The DUI cost guide covers how those convictions affect rates.

Excluding a teen or a spouse: relatives, age and household rules

The household member most often considered for an exclusion is a new teen driver, because adding one raises the premium sharply. Two of the statutes read here speak directly to that choice. Wisconsin bars excluding a relative of the insured by blood, marriage or adoption, and separately bars excluding a person who is old enough to drive “solely for reasons of age.” A Wisconsin parent cannot sign a teen out of the household policy. Florida bars an exclusion made solely because of age or marital status, though it allows one for other reasons with the named insured’s consent.

Other statutes in the table aim squarely at household members. Utah permits excluding a resident of the household; Connecticut speaks of resident relatives excluded by endorsement; Maryland’s endorsement can extend to family members in the excluded driver’s household. In those states the exclusion is a lawful tool, but the risk sits with the family. A teen who is excluded and drives the family car anyway is uninsured on that trip, and in Michigan the parent is presumed to have consented.

A spouse is a harder case for an exclusion than a teen. In California, the defense duty under 11580.1(d)(1) survives only if the excluded spouse has a separate policy as a named insured that does not defend the other spouse, and only when both are sued together after a crash in the named insured’s car.

If the reason for considering an exclusion is price, compare it with the alternatives first: assigning the teen to the lowest-rated car, raising deductibles, or claiming a good-student or driver-training discount. The adding a teen driver guide works through those choices with the rating rules that drive the increase, and the guide to how much liability coverage you need explains why the household’s assets, not the premium, should set the limits.

Checks to make before signing an exclusion endorsement

An exclusion endorsement is short, and its effect is total while the named person drives. These checks follow from the statutes above and are worth putting to the insurer in writing before you sign.

• Which coverages does the endorsement remove? Florida lets an exclusion reach PIP, property damage, bodily injury, uninsured motorist and optional coverages separately, and Maryland preserves PIP and uninsured motorist coverage for other people in some cases. Ask for the list.
• Does any liability coverage remain while the excluded person drives? In the states read here the usual answer is none, and West Virginia wrote that answer into its code in 2015.
• Does your state require the excluded person to carry insurance? In Utah and South Carolina the exclusion depends on it; in Florida the excluded driver is required to buy it; in Pennsylvania the first named insured’s request depends on it for first-party benefits.
• Is the excluded person a relative? In Wisconsin that ends the question, because relatives cannot be excluded.
• Who owns the cars the excluded person might drive? An owner who lends a car can be personally liable for the driver under statutes such as Michigan’s 257.401 and Florida’s 324.021, with no policy defending the owner.
• How is the exclusion removed later? Ask what the insurer needs to reinstate coverage and what the premium would be, so that removing it is planned rather than discovered after a crash.
• Is the exclusion on every policy that could respond? A Virginia umbrella policy can exclude a person the auto policy must cover; check that the umbrella and the auto policy agree on who is excluded.

A denied claim after a crash involving an excluded driver usually turns on the endorsement, so keep the signed copy with the declarations page. The guide to a denied car insurance claim explains how a coverage denial differs from a dispute over the amount, and your state insurance department can answer whether a specific endorsement form was approved for use.

How long an exclusion lasts and what it does to price

Several statutes say how long an exclusion stays on the policy, and the answer is longer than most policyholders expect. Arizona’s written agreement “is effective for each renewal” and remains until the insurer agrees in writing to cover the person again. Utah’s exclusion “shall remain effective until removed by the insurer.” South Carolina’s agreement binds “any substitution or renewal” of the policy. Removing an exclusion is a change the insurer must accept and price, not something that lapses on its own when a teen moves away or a license is reinstated.

Price is the reason most exclusions are signed, and Maryland is the one state read here that writes the price effect into law: a policy that excludes a named driver may not carry a premium that reflects that driver’s claim experience or driving record. Elsewhere the effect depends on the insurer’s filed rating plan. Rating plans are public filings in most states, and the SERFF rate filing guide shows how to look one up.

An exclusion also affects the excluded person’s own insurance history. A driver who has been excluded and has bought no policy of their own may show a gap in continuous coverage when they later apply, and many insurers rate a lapse. The car insurance lapse guide covers how a gap is treated. A driver who needs an SR-22 or a similar filing after a suspension usually needs a policy in their own name for it, which the SR-22 guide describes.

Questions readers ask

An excluded driver who buys a separate policy usually starts at the state minimum; the minimum limits guide shows how far those floors sit below a serious injury claim.