Defendants claim that the "member of the household" exclusion violates the public policy of this State as expressed in the amended Married Women Act and the financial responsibility law. These claims have been considered and rejected by this court in Safeco Insurance Co. v. Seck (1992), 225 Ill. App.3d 397, 587 N.E.2d 1251. Because Illinois courts have traditionally upheld the validity of "member of the household" exclusions (see Seck, 225 Ill. App.3d at 399-400, 587 N.E.2d at 1253), defendants rely primarily on the decisions of other jurisdictions in support of their arguments. (See, e.g., Annot., 52 A.L.R.4th 18 (1987); Annot., 46 A.L.R.4th 1024 (1986).)

Villicana, 181 Ill.2d at 442. However, if a household exclusion provision is clear and unambiguous and does not contravene public policy, it must be applied as written. Safeco Insurance Co. v. Seck, 225 Ill. App.3d 397, 400 (1992). State Farm claims that the trial court erred by finding that the household exclusions violate the public policy of this state as expressed by our supreme court in Cates, 156 Ill.2d 76. An examination of the Cates decision reveals that our supreme court did not address the issue at bar.

Villicana, 181 Ill. 2d at 442. However, if an exclusion is clear and unambiguous and does not contravene public policy, it must be applied as written. Safeco Insurance Co. v. Seck, 225 Ill. App.3d 397, 400 (1992). The standards by which a court determines whether an insurer is obligated to defend its insured are clear. Ordinarily, a court looks to the allegations in the underlying complaint and compares those allegations to the relevant provisions of the insurance policy.

See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Mastbaum, 748 P.2d 1042 (Utah 1987); Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company v. Wiscomb, 95 Wn.2d 373, 622 P.2d 1234 (1980).See, e.g., Allstate Insurance Company v. Elwell, 513 A.2d 269 (Me. 1986); Safeco Insurance Company v. Seck, 225 Ill. App.3d 397, 167 Ill.Dec. 636, 587 N.E.2d 1251 (2d Dist. 1992).See Safeco Insurance Company v. Seck, 225 Ill. App.3d 397, 167 Ill.Dec. 636, 587 N.E.2d 1251 (2d Dist. 1992); American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Ward, 789 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. 1990); Neil v. Allstate Insurance Company, 379 Pa. Super. 299, 549 A.2d 1304 (1988); Allstate Insurance Company v. Elwell.

We conclude that, although the policy's language in Allen is slightly different from the policy's language here, the meaning of the language in the two policies is analogous for the purpose of interpreting section 143.01(b) of the Code. Before construing section 143.01(b) of the Code, we note that the case of Safeco Insurance Co. v. Seck (1992), 225 Ill. App.3d 397, relied on by Woiwode, is inapplicable to the present case. The question in Seck was whether the abrogation of interspousal tort immunity invalidated the family exclusion clause in an automobile insurance policy.

Absent a more definitive pronouncement by the Illinois legislature, we refuse to hold that an insurer's limitation of coverage in suits involving sexual misconduct violates the Illinois public policy of allowing victims to recover damages from psychotherapists. Cf. Safeco Ins. Co v. Seck, 225 Ill.App.3d 397, 167 Ill.Dec. 636, 587 N.E.2d 1251 (1992) (refusing to hold that automobile insurance provisions excluding recovery by family members is void as against the public policy espoused by Illinois Women's Rights Act, which abrogated interspousal tort immunity, because the Act speaks to legal empowerment rather than guaranteed insurance coverage); Collins, 196 Ill.Dec. 217, 629 N.E.2d 762 (following Safeco). The policy questions of whether a psychotherapist should obtain malpractice liability insurance, and how much coverage, are within the province of the Illinois legislature. We will not expand a mutually binding private insurance contract on public policy grounds simply because the expansion might be more desirable or advantageous to a third party beneficiary of the insurance contract.

In addition to Florida, other states have also upheld the family exclusion clause. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elwell, 513 A.2d 269 (Me. 1986); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Falness, 178 Ariz. 281, 872 P.2d 1233 (1994); Walker v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 340 N.W.2d 599 (Iowa 1983) (the exclusionary clause does not violate public policy to protect persons injured in motor vehicle accidents from financially irresponsible motorists in the absence of a legislative intent to require all motorists to have liability insurance); Safeco Ins. Co. v. Seck, 225 Ill. App.3d 397, 587 N.E.2d 1251, 167 Ill.Dec. 636 (2d Dist. 1992) (abrogation of interspousal immunity reflects a public policy which speaks to legal empowerment rather than guaranteed insurance coverage). The California Supreme Court has held that such an insurance policy exclusion clause was consistent with state public policy and that it did not violate principles of equal protection.