410_C116

---

VEHICLE OWNER NOT COVERED AS PERMISSIVE USER

---

Two people were injured in an automobile accident, with the at-fault driver driving a vehicle allegedly belonging to his girlfriend. The insurer denied the claim because the driver was neither an insured nor a permissive user under the owner’s policy.

There was a factual issue that had to be resolved by the court as to whether the driver was an owner of the vehicle. He had negotiated the purchase on behalf of his girlfriend, signed an installment agreement for the unpaid balance, and titled and registered the vehicle in his name as the sole owner. Although his girlfriend added the vehicle to her automobile policy and paid the insurance premiums, she did not list him as an insured on her policy.

The girlfriend regularly permitted her boyfriend to drive the vehicle. Her insurance policy did not define “consent” or state who could drive with consent. The court concluded that since the driver had an ownership interest in the vehicle at the time of the accident, he could not quality for liability coverage as a permissive user. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer that it had no obligation to defend and indemnify the driver against claims arising from his collision with the claimants. The insured and the injured claimants appealed.

The Appellate Court held that the driver was not covered as a permissive user, and affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Susan Weber, Plaintiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Ronald Ronningen et al, Defendants-Appellants, CtAppOR. Nos. 040909851 and A131581. Filed, November 28, 2007. Affirmed.