Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Hmelevsky Ex Rel. Ridgeway
1975 Ida. LEXIS 358, 97 Idaho 46, 539 P.2d 598 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a family context, if an insured gives their child general permission to use a vehicle, the insurance policy's coverage extends to accidents that occur even when the child substantially deviates from the specific scope of that permission, including by allowing a third party to drive in direct violation of the insured's express prohibition.
Facts:
- Leon and Fay Wright owned an automobile and generally permitted their minor daughter, Leona Wright, to drive it.
- The Wrights specifically and explicitly forbade Leona from allowing any other person to drive their vehicles.
- On June 27, 1971, the Wrights left a note giving Leona permission to drive the car to an aunt's house, located about one and a half miles away.
- Instead of driving to her aunt's house, Leona picked up three friends, including James Couch and appellant Michelle Hmelevsky.
- The group purchased beer and drugs, then drove in the Wrights' car to the Stanley, Idaho area, approximately 150 miles from the Wrights' home.
- During the return trip from Stanley, Leona allowed James Couch to drive the vehicle.
- While Couch was driving, he was involved in a single-vehicle accident that resulted in injuries to all four occupants.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Hmelevsky and John Jensen filed separate personal injury actions in a state trial court against Leon and Fay Wright and James Couch.
- Farm Bureau, the Wrights' insurer, subsequently filed a separate action for declaratory judgment in the same trial court to determine its liability under its policy.
- Farmers Insurance Company, Couch's alleged insurer, intervened in the declaratory judgment action seeking a similar determination of its liability.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of both insurance carriers, declaring that neither policy provided coverage for the accident.
- Michelle Hmelevsky, one of the injured parties, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
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, which covers drivers operating the vehicle with the owner's 'permission,' provide coverage for an accident when the owner's minor child, who had general permission to use the car, allows a third party to drive in direct violation of the owner's express prohibition and uses the car for a purpose far beyond the specific permission granted for that trip?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, J.
Yes. The automobile insurance policy provides coverage. In the context of intra-family relationships, 'permission' under an insurance policy's omnibus clause means general permission to use the vehicle, and coverage is not defeated by deviations from the specific instructions given for a particular use. The court adopts a liberal 'initial permission' rule for the family context, reasoning that it is foreseeable that a child will deviate from a parent's express rules regarding the car's usage. This interpretation aligns with the public policy of Idaho’s motor vehicle safety responsibility act, which aims to protect the public by ensuring compensation for those injured by irresponsible drivers. The court holds there is no meaningful distinction between a permittee exceeding the scope of permission in terms of time or place and exceeding it by allowing another person to drive, even when explicitly forbidden.
Dissenting - Donaldson, J.
No. The policy should not provide coverage. While the 'initial permission' rule may be reasonable, the majority extends it too far by providing coverage to a sub-permittee driving in direct violation of the owner's express prohibition. This decision effectively overrules the precedent set in Butterfield v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. This will likely force insurance companies to list all licensed children in a household as drivers, leading to higher insurance rates for parents.
Dissenting - Bakes, J.
No. The policy should not provide coverage. This dissent concurs with Justice Donaldson's reasoning but also raises a procedural objection. The critical issue of 'permission' should be determined in the main personal injury lawsuit, not in a preemptive declaratory judgment action filed by the insurance companies. Deciding the issue separately prejudices the injured plaintiffs and creates a risk of inconsistent judgments, especially since the insured owners, the Wrights, were not even parties to this declaratory action.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the definition of 'permission' within omnibus clauses of automobile insurance policies in Idaho, particularly in the family context. By adopting a modified 'initial permission' rule, the court prioritizes the public policy of compensating injured third parties over the literal enforcement of an insured's specific instructions to a family member. This precedent makes it much more difficult for insurers to deny coverage based on a driver's deviation from the owner's stated rules, so long as initial permission was granted. The ruling shifts more risk to insurance carriers, who must now underwrite policies with the expectation that such deviations, including the use by unapproved sub-permittees, are covered events within a family setting.
Unlock the full brief for Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Hmelevsky Ex Rel. Ridgeway