Allied Group Insurance v. Garcia
852 P.2d 485, 123 Idaho 733, 1993 Ida. LEXIS 105 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An automobile insurance policy exclusion that denies liability coverage based on the driver's subjective belief of entitlement to use the vehicle is void as against public policy where it conflicts with a state statute requiring coverage for any person using the vehicle with the owner's express or implied permission.
Facts:
- The Garcias owned an automobile insured by Allied Group Insurance Company (Allied).
- Their 28-year-old son, Robert Garcia, lived with them in their household.
- The Garcias kept the keys to the insured vehicle on a nail in the kitchen.
- The Garcias had not explicitly told Robert that he could not use the car, nor did they monitor the car's gas, oil, or mileage.
- Robert Garcia took the vehicle without asking for express permission and struck a pedestrian, James Bartrop.
- Robert later stated that he did not have permission and knew his parents would not have granted it if he had asked.
Procedural Posture:
- Allied Group Insurance Company (Allied) filed a declaratory judgment action in the trial court against Robert Garcia.
- Allied later amended its complaint to add Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) and James Bartrop as defendants.
- Allied moved for summary judgment, arguing its policy did not cover Robert due to an 'entitlement exclusion'.
- Allstate also moved for summary judgment, arguing Robert was covered as a family member.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Allied, ruling that Robert was not covered because he lacked a reasonable belief he was entitled to use the vehicle.
- Allstate, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an automobile insurance policy exclusion, which denies coverage to any person using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that they are entitled to do so, violate a state statute requiring an owner's policy to insure any person using the vehicle with the express or implied permission of the named insured?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes, the policy exclusion violates the state statute. An insurance policy exclusion that focuses on the driver's subjective state of mind is unenforceable when it conflicts with a legislative mandate requiring coverage based on the objective standard of the owner's express or implied permission. Idaho Code § 49-1212(l)(b) requires an owner's policy to insure any person using the vehicle with the owner's express or implied permission. This statutory focus is on the owner's conduct and the relationship between the owner and driver, not the driver's personal belief of entitlement. Because the Allied policy's 'entitlement exclusion' directly conflicts with this express legislative directive, it is void. Furthermore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Robert had implied permission, which precludes summary judgment and requires a trial to resolve.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that statutory mandates for insurance coverage override conflicting, more restrictive provisions within an insurance policy. By invalidating the 'reasonable belief' exclusion, the court prioritizes the public policy of protecting accident victims over the insurer's freedom of contract. The ruling clarifies that the test for coverage under such statutes is objective—based on the owner's actions creating 'implied permission'—rather than subjective, based on the driver's state of mind. This precedent makes it more difficult for insurers to deny claims based on policy language that is narrower than the state's financial responsibility laws.
Unlock the full brief for Allied Group Insurance v. Garcia