Marco Soto-Abarca v. Trexis Insurance Co.

── Marco Soto-Abarca v. Trexis Insurance Co. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 192 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-24-853 MARCO SOTO-ABARCA Opinion Delivered March 18, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 72CV-23-867] TREXIS INSURANCE CO. HONORABLE BETH STOREY BRYAN, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge This appeal asks this court to determine, as a matter of first impression, 1 whether a provision in an automobile insurance policy excluding coverage for unlicensed drivers is void as against public policy. Marco Soto-Abarca (Abarca) appeals the order of the Washington County Circuit Court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by appellee Trexis Insurance Company (“Trexis”) finding that the exclusion did not violate public policy. The underlying facts of this case are fairly straightforward and undisputed. Trexis issued an Arkansas personal automobile insurance policy to Arturo Martinez-Araujo (Araujo). The policy language included several exclusions to claims presented under the 1 This court attempted to certify this appeal to the supreme court, citing Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(c)(1), (4), and (5); however, certification was denied on February 19, 2026. policy. At issue in this case is the exclusion declaring that Trexis does not provide liability coverage for the following: 7. “Bodily injury” or “property damage” caused by or in any way arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of a vehicle by a: .... c. Person who does not possess a valid, in-force operator’s license, .... unless that person is listed as a driver or resident on the application or endorsed onto the “Declarations” during the policy term but before the loss. This exclusion applies regardless of the theory of liability. Araujo gave Julian Trejo permission to drive his car, a 2005 Honda Civic. Trejo did not possess a valid driver’s license at the time. On December 2, 2022, Trejo was involved in a motor-vehicle accident with a car driven by Abarca. Abarca’s vehicle was insured under a policy issued by Traders Insurance Co. (“Traders”); that policy provided uninsured-motorist coverage to Abarca. Abarca subsequently sued Trejo in the Washington County Circuit Court. Trexis, as the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, filed an answer on Trejo’s behalf. Trexis then filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Araujo, Abarca, Trejo, and Traders asking the circuit court to declare it had no duty to defend or indemnify Trejo because he was not a covered person under the insurance policy as a result of the unlicensed-driver exclusion. 2  After conducting discovery, Trexis moved for summary judgment on its declaratory- judgment action, arguing that the insurance policy it issued to Araujo unambiguously excluded coverage for damages caused by the operation of the car by a person who does not possess a valid, in-force operator’s license. Abarca responded to Trexis’s motion, arguing that the unlicensed-driver exclusion was void as against public policy. The circuit court held a hearing on Trexis’s summary-judgment motion on September 19, 2024. After considering arguments of counsel, the court granted Trexis’s motion, first finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the exclusionary language was unambiguous. The court then considered Abarca’s public-policy