Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following case explores the concept of “permissive use” in the context of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) insurance coverage. Specifically, it examines whether a son, given a company truck for work and personal use, had the authority to grant his father permission to drive the vehicle, thereby extending UM coverage to the father under the company’s policy.
Case Background
Randal Boudreaux was involved in an accident while driving a truck owned by AES Drilling Fluids, LLC, and insured by Commerce and Industry Insurance Company. The truck was assigned to Randal’s son, Micah, an AES employee. Micah had been given the truck for both business and personal use, subject to certain company policies.
Randal sued the other driver and Commerce, arguing he was covered under the UM provisions of AES’s policy as a permissive user. The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment in Randal’s favor. Commerce appealed.
Legal Principles at Play
Summary Judgment: A procedural tool used to resolve cases where no genuine dispute of material fact exists. The court can rule as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts.
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM) Coverage: Insurance that protects you if you’re injured by a driver who either has no insurance or insufficient insurance to cover your damages.
Permissive Use: The legal concept that allows someone other than the vehicle owner to drive the vehicle with the owner’s consent, either express or implied. This is crucial in determining insurance coverage.
The Court’s Analysis
The appeals court reviewed the case de novo, meaning they looked at it afresh without deference to the trial court’s decision. They focused on whether Randal had “permission” to use the truck, a key requirement for UM coverage under the Commerce policy.
The court highlighted these points:
Policy Language: The Commerce policy extended UM coverage to anyone “occupying” a covered vehicle with the named insured’s (AES’s) express or implied permission.
Express vs. Implied Permission: While Micah didn’t have explicit permission from AES to let his father drive, the court considered whether “implied permission” existed.
Reasonable Foreseeability: The court applied a “reasonable foreseeability” test. Was it reasonably foreseeable that Micah, given the circumstances, would allow someone else to drive the truck?
Company Policies and Personal Use: Micah had signed documents acknowledging company policies regarding vehicle use. However, he was allowed personal use of the truck and even paid for insurance for this purpose.
The Decision
The appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision, finding that Randal had implied permission to use the truck and was therefore covered by the Commerce UM policy. They reasoned that it was reasonably foreseeable that Micah would allow his father to drive the truck, especially given the personal use allowance and the fact that Micah was paying for insurance.
Key Takeaways
Implied Permission: This case illustrates how “implied permission” can extend insurance coverage even without explicit consent from the vehicle owner.
Scope of Employment: The court considered whether the son was acting within the scope of his employment when he lent the truck to his father. Since it was for personal use, the court found it was reasonably foreseeable that he might let someone else drive.
Company Policies: While written policies are important, the court looked at the overall context, including the allowance for personal use and the payment for insurance, to determine foreseeability.
This case provides valuable insight into how Louisiana courts interpret permissive use in UM insurance cases. It underscores the importance of considering all factors, including company policies and the context of vehicle use, to determine whether implied permission exists.