In Meritplan Ins. Co. v. Woollum (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 167, the Court of the Second Appellate District affirmed a judgment in the trial court in favor of an insurance carrier. The Court held that the exclusionary and definition clauses, defining the "named insured" to mean the individual named in the declarations and also his spouse, if a resident of the same household, was unambiguous and hence effective to insulate the insurer from liability to the insured's wife and the exclusionary clause was not contrary to public policy and unenforceable, since Insurance Code section 11580.1, subdivision (c), authorized exclusion of a named insured from the coverage of an automobile liability policy. In Meritplan (a husband-wife situation) husband was the insured and the wife was injured while riding as a passenger in an automobile registered in husband's name and driven by him. Wife sued for her injuries. The Court affirmed the granting of a summary judgment by the trial court in favor of the insurance carrier. "The policy on page one stated under the heading 'Part I--Liability,' that Meritplan agrees: 'To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of. . . bodily injury. . . sustained by any person. . . arising out of the ownership. . . or use of the owned automobile. . . . ' "On page one under a subheading 'Persons Insured,' the policy provided: 'The following are insureds under Part I. . . with respect to the owned automobile: (1) the named insured, (2) any other person using such automobile with the permission of the named insured. . . . ' On page two of the policy, under the subheading 'Definitions: Under Part I,' it stated: '"Named insured" means the individual named in the declarations and also includes his spouse, if a resident of the same household; "insured" means a person or organization described under "persons insured": "relative" means a relative of the named insured or spouse who is a resident of the same household and not temporarily residing. . . elsewhere; provided neither he nor his spouse owns a private passenger automobile.' "On page three under the subheading 'Exclusions,' the policy provided: 'This policy does not apply under Part I: to bodily injury to (1) the spouse or any parent, son, or daughter of the insured, or (2) the named insured.'" (52 Cal.App.3d at pp. 169-170.) The Meritplan court acknowledged that "Coverage clauses of an insurance policy are construed broadly, resolving all ambiguity in favor of coverage. Exclusionary clauses are interpreted narrowly, resolving all ambiguity against exclusion. (52 Cal.App.3d at p. 174.) The Court in Meritplan also held that the exclusionary clause in the Meritplan policy (see fn. 1, ante ) was not contrary to public policy and was enforceable, being clearly within the ambit of the Insurance Code passed by the state Legislature. The court stated at page 175: "Paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of section 11580.1 thus authorizes the exclusion of a named insured from the coverage of an automobile liability policy to which section 11580.05 applies. Section 11580.1 does not engraft the Jacober limitation, used in a different context, that the exclusion applies only where the insured is subject to the particular claim. It does so by expressing the limitation with respect to other exclusions but not as to the exclusion of an insured." In Meritplan the wife argued that unless the Meritplan exclusionary clause was declared unenforceable as against public policy, the abolition of interspousal immunity declared in Klein v. Klein (1962) 58 Cal.2d 692 26 Cal.Rptr. 102, 376 P.2d 70, would be meaningless. This court in holding this argument lacked substance stated: "Naomi can still sue David for negligently inflicted injury and recover from him. Absent an as yet unenacted requirement that all liability for personal injury be covered by insurance, the public policy declaration in Insurance Code section 11580.05 requires rejection of the argument." (52 Cal.App.3d at pp. 175-176.)