Hays v. Country Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1963
• Docket Number: No. 37722,37722
• Citation: Hays v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 192 N.E.2d 855, 28 Ill.2d 601 (Ill. 1963)
• Parties: Doris HAYS (Caudle), Appellee, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 855

192 N.E.2d 855

28 Ill.2d 601

Doris HAYS (Caudle), Appellee, v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 37722.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 27, 1963.

Craig & Craig, Mattoon (J. E. Horsley and John P. Ewart, Mattoon, of counsel) for appellant.

Ryan & Heller, Mattoon (Willis P. Ryan and Harlan Heller, Mattoon, of counsel) for appellee.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

This case turns upon the meaning and application of the 'omnibus clause' of a policy of automobile liability insurance, which extends coverage to other persons in addition to the named insured. The plaintiff suffered personal injuries when the automobile in which she was a passenger struck a culvert. She sued the driver, Thomas Hargis, and recovered a judgment for $11,267.50. She then commenced this action upon the judgment against the defendant, Country Mutual Insurance Company, claiming that the driver, Hargis, was an additional insured within the terms of a policy of insurance issued to Stanley Daily, the owner of the automobile. At the close of the plaintiff's case the trial court sustained the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Upon appeal, the Appellate Court for the Third District reversed and remanded by a divided vote. The defendant moved to strike the remanding clause, and consented to the entry of judgment against it in the sum of $11,267.50 in the event that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The case is here upon a certificate of importance granted by the Appellate Court.

The clause of the insurance policy in issue extends the liability coverage 'to any person or persons while riding in or operating the motor vehicle described in this policy when such motor vehicle is being used for the purpose and in the manner described in this policy * * *. The coverage hereby afforded shall not apply unless the riding, use or operation above referred to be with the permission of the Insured named in this policy, or if such Insured is an individual, with the permission of any adult member of such Insured's family * * *.'

It is agreed that neither Stanley Daily, the owner of the automobile and the named insured, nor any adult member of his family, gave express permission for the use or operation of the car by Thomas Hargis. It is also conceded that permission within the terms of the policy need not be express, and that implied permission would suffice to extend the coverage.

The evidence offered by the plaintiff showed that the insured, Stanley Daily, obtained the policy in question to cover the operation of his 1950 Chevrolet automobile for business or pleasure. He lived on a farm ten miles east of the town of Sullivan, Illinois, with his wife, his fifteen-year-old son, Roger Daily, his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, Eleanor Slover, and two younger daughters, Janet and Aggie. On the evening of November 5, 1955, the three older children wished to go into Sullivan, so that Roger and Janet might see a motion picture and Eleanor might keep a date. Eleanor had obtained a driver's license two or three weeks previously. Roger had no regular license, but held a farm permit which allowed him to drive between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., and he had driven around the farm and on the road in the daytime. Roger testified that after supper Eleanor 'asked Father if we could use the car that Saturday night because she's got her license and she never had been to town or drove before by ourselves and she asked him if we could take it to town. There was a hesitation whether he'd let us or not and then he said it would be okay if we took it and parked it on the square and not drive around, just go to the show and come out and go home. He also said at that time Eleanor was to drive.' Neither the father nor Eleanor appeared as a witness, and no other testimony was offered as to the terms of this permission.

About 7:00 P.M. the three children left for town with Eleanor driving. The ignition was unlocked and the car was operated without a key simply by turning the ignition switch. In Sullivan, they stopped near the hardware store where Thomas Hargis and his older brother Barry were working. Barry, with whom Eleanor had her date, and Thomas Hargis came out to the car where they conversed. With them was Stanley Guin, a mutual friend of Thomas Hargis and Roger Daily. Thomas Hargis and Stanley Guin had been looking for something to do, and Thomas asked Roger Daily if he could use the car that evening. Roger said that there wasn't much gas in the car; Thomas offered to furnish gas, and Roger said 'okay.' Thomas returned to the store and Roger parked the car.

Thomas Hargis was a schoolmate of Roger Daily and had visited the Daily home occasionally. Like Roger, he was fifteen years old. He had no driver's license and Roger knew it. Thomas testified that he had driven this car several times, and the previously owned Daily car as well. Stanley Guin, another schoolmate, was fourteen at the time and had no driver's license.

After the conversation, Thomas Hargis went home and returned with Stanley Guin and another friend to Ralph's Grill. There they met Nancy Marlow and the plaintiff. Nancy said something about getting a car, and Thomas said they had a car they could use. They found the Daily car parked in the square, and Nancy Marlow drove. They first took the friend to his home, and the four (Thomas Hargis, Stanley Guin, Nancy Marlow, and the plaintiff) then drove to the nearby town of Lovington, intending to go to a basketball game. They changed their minds, drove through Lovington, and then began the return trip. At Nancy's request, Thomas Hargis took over the driving. A short while later the car collided with a culvert when, according to Thomas Hargis, the accelerator pedal became stuck and he lost control of the car.

On the defendant's motion for a directed verdict all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the plaintiff, and all issues of credibility resolved in her favor. We assume, therefore, that the jury might have found that the father, Stanley Daily, did not expressly prohibit operation by all others when he specified that Eleanor was to drive. The direction might have been intended, as plaintiff argues, only to exclude operation by Roger, or to choose between the competing wishes of Eleanor and Roger to drive. We may also assume that the circumstances under which Roger agreed to allow Thomas Hargis to use the car would permit a jury to find that Eleanor tacitly consented by her silence, since the conversation took place in her presence.

Even in this light, the evidence at best establishes that permission was granted by Stanley Daily to Eleanor and Roger for a specified and limited purpose, and that they granted permission in turn to Thomas Hargis to use the automobile for his own general and unspecified purpose. Nothing in the record tends to show that Stanley Daily contemplated any use by Thomas Hargis, or discloses any permissive relationship between them. The claimant under the policy bears the burden of proof on the question of coverage, and the plaintiff here bore the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Thomas Hargis was operating the insured automobile with the permission of Stanley Daily. (See Soukup v. Halmel, 357 Ill. 576, 192 N.E. 557.) This burden she has failed to discharge.

The plaintiff's claim could be sustained only by holding that the insured's permission granted to one user inherently carries with it, without more, a delegation of authority to the permittee to grant permission to a third person to use the vehicle. So to regard the permission granted by the permittee as 'the permission of the Insured named in this policy' would constitute a substantial departure from the ordinary meaning of the words of the policy, especially in view of the policy's specific restriction to permission only by 'adult members' of the insured's family.

Such a departure from plain meaning is said to be justified in this case by several considerations that favor a liberal interpretation. It is pointed out that no issue of potential liability of Stanley Daily is involved, under principles of vicarious liability or respondent superior. In acquiring a policy with an omnibus clause, it is said, the insured in effect makes a gift of coverage to those who use his car. Under the policy he is empowered to extend coverage simply by granting permission to anyone he chooses, without any increase in the premium he pays. So it is said that no interest of the insured is served by a restrictive interpretation of the policy. (Cf. Baesler v. Globe Indemnity Co., 33 N.J. 148, 162 A.2d 854, 859 (1960) (dissenting opinion).) The argument of the insurance company that to read the requirement of permission out of the policy would increase its risk is said to be unrealistic in the light of the power of the insured to grant permission to anyone. Generally, it is urged that a liberal interpretation of coverage is consistent with the broad public policy aimed at compensation for traffic victims, which is expressed in safety and financial responsibility laws. As authority for the proposition that the requirement of permission should not be technically or restrictively interpreted, the plaintiff refers to dicisions that hold that coverage is not destroyed when the permittee exceeds the scope of his permission by deviating from the route or purpose for which he was permitted to use the car, so long as an initial permission was in fact granted to that user. See Konrad v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 11 Ill.App.2d 503, 137 N.E.2d 855; Landis, etc. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 347 Ill.App. 560, 107 N.E.2d 187; Jefson, etc. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 293 Ill.App. 97, 11 N.E.2d 993. See also Karton v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 280 Ill.App. 201; Jackson for use of Schaer v. Bankers Indemnity Insurance Co., 277 Ill.App. 140.

Although these arguments have force, they do not justify this court in...