Exner v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
167 A.2d 703, 402 Pa. 473, 1961 Pa. LEXIS 383 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a vehicle owner gives another person general permission to use a vehicle for a specific task without explicit restrictions, a deviation from that task does not automatically negate permission for insurance coverage purposes; the scope of the implied permission and the significance of the deviation are questions of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- Gangewere owned a car and lived with his wife in Allentown, but also maintained a separate home nearby where his mistress and their son, Robert Jacoby, lived.
- On a Sunday morning, Gangewere gave Jacoby permission to wax and polish his car, telling him the keys were in his coat pocket.
- Gangewere gave no specific instructions about where or when the waxing should be done and placed no express restrictions on the car's use.
- Jacoby had previously used the car for small, permitted errands without deviating from the assigned task.
- Jacoby picked up a friend and, finding the local filling station closed, drove 37 miles to Jim Thorpe to look for a girl.
- After failing to find the girl, Jacoby and his friend drove to a back road where they waxed and polished half of the car.
- While driving back to Allentown from Jim Thorpe, Jacoby was involved in a car accident with the Exners.
Procedural Posture:
- The Exners (plaintiffs) obtained verdicts against Robert Jacoby, the driver, in Carbon County court for damages from an automobile collision.
- The insurance carrier for the car's owner, Gangewere, refused to pay on the verdicts against Jacoby.
- The Exners sued Gangewere's insurance carrier (defendant) in Lehigh County to recover under the policy's omnibus clause.
- At trial, the jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs, the Exners.
- The trial court judge granted the defendant-insurer's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto (n.o.v.), setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment for the insurer.
- The plaintiffs, the Exners, appealed the entry of the judgment n.o.v. to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 a driver's use of a vehicle fall within the scope of the owner's 'permission' under an insurance policy's omnibus clause when the owner grants permission for a specific task (waxing the car) without restrictions, and the driver deviates by taking a 37-mile personal trip before partially completing the task?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Bok
Yes, the driver's use of the vehicle can fall within the scope of the owner's permission. Where initial permission to use a vehicle is granted, its scope is a question of fact for the jury. Proving ownership of the car by Gangewere and its operation by Jacoby created a presumption of permission, shifting the burden to the defendant insurer to rebut it. Although Gangewere testified that he did not grant permission for the trip, Jacoby testified that no restrictions were given. The court held that this conflicting oral testimony, even if it were undisputed, creates a credibility question for the jury to resolve. The deviation to Jim Thorpe was not a substantial deviation as a matter of law because Jacoby did, in fact, partially perform the task for which permission was given (waxing the car). Unlike prior cases with specific geographical or task-based restrictions, the general nature of the permission here made the reasonableness of the deviation a jury question.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the scope of implied permission for vehicle use is a factual question primarily within the province of the jury. It makes it more difficult for insurers to obtain summary judgment or judgment n.o.v. in cases involving deviations from a permitted use, especially when the initial grant of permission was broad and lacked specific prohibitions. The ruling underscores the weight given to a jury's role in assessing witness credibility and determining the reasonable boundaries of implied consent. Consequently, insurers may face greater liability under omnibus clauses unless the named insured places clear and explicit limitations on the use of their vehicle.
