This is a two-part question, the first part describing a scenario in which a third-party did not have permission to drive a company vehicle; and the second part questioning but what if the vehicle driver granted the third party permission, but the vehicle driver was not the vehicle owner.

Kentucky Subscriber

Part 1 Question:

A loss occurred in Kentucky under a business auto policy. An insured employee keeps the company's van overnight. The girlfriend of the employee takes the van without knowledge from our insured, and hits two parked cars. The girlfriend has no insurance. Would this be an implied permission situation where our insured would still be liable?

Part 1 Answer:

Based on policy language alone, since the driver took the van with neither knowledge nor permission, there would be no coverage since she does not meet the requirements of an "insured" under the policy. With respect to an 'implied situation', this could only be determined by a court proceeding, and we could not answer how that might go.

Part 2 Question:

What if she took the van with permission from the employee of the company but not the actual company (owner)?

Part 2 Answer:

FC&S has taken the position that in the case of non-owned vehicle use without permission of the vehicle owner, there is no coverage. The policy language limits coverage to those cases where the non-vehicle owner was operating the vehicle with the insured's express permission, and does not address those situations where there may be implied permission.

Courts, on the other hand, take many things into consideration when determining coverage. Some examples include an assessment of the employer-employee relationship with respect to the employee's use of the vehicle, what oral or written contract is in place regarding the vehicle usage and permissions, what permission may have been stated or implied to the third party, whether or not the third party had used the vehicle in the past and under what circumstances, and other considerations.

Therefore, the policy language answer is that just because the employee had permission to use the vehicle and take it home (to what extent that applied to personal situations we cannot say), that permission did not extend to any other person and as such there would be no coverage even if the employee consented to the third party use, since the employee was not the vehicle owner/insured.