Opinion ID: 1658533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Designated Operator

Text: Plaintiffs further contend that the listing in the policy of both Beverly and Craig Heggen as designated operators constituted an implied authority for Craig Heggen to use the vehicle or to lend it to third persons, regardless of Beverly Heggen's permission. Plaintiffs argue that the policy's failure to define the term designated operator indicates that any person listed in the numerical designation of operators may use any listed vehicle without restriction. The term designated operator not only is undefined in the policy, but also is totally absent from the policy. Counsel's use of the term refers to a block on the declarations page of the policy which is titled Numerical Designation of Operators and indicates For Office Use. In that block was typed 01 Beverly J. Heggen and 04 Craig A. Heggen, along with their driver's license numbers. The typing in this block should not be given any legal significance, since there are no further references in the policy's terms and conditions to the numerical designation of operators and the block is specifically designated For Office Use. The policy language regarding coverage based on permissive use is express and explicit, and courts should not indulge in expanding express insurance policy provisions concerning coverage by speculating on the meaning of words which are written on the declarations page of the policy in a section designated for internal office use only. Moreover, there is no apparent reason why a person listed in the numerical designation of operators should be entitled to give permission to use the vehicle when a person who qualifies as an insured under the policy's definition cannot do so because the policy restricts coverage for permissive use to those persons driving with the permission of the named insured. The omnibus clause in effect grants absolute discretion to the named insured to select other insured drivers, but does not give this unlimited discretionary power to any other person. Plaintiffs' argument that the listing of Craig Heggen in the numerical designation of operators indicated the named insured's intention to give him unrestricted authority to use and lend the listed vehicle appears to be a mere afterthought on appeal following unsuccessful efforts to develop other theories of implied permission at trial. However, there are many reasonable explanations for Beverly Heggen's furnishing this information for internal office use other than that she intended thereby to grant general permission which she had in fact steadfastly withheld. [4] The effect of accepting plaintiffs' argument in this case would be to make any designated operator a named insured for purposes of omnibus coverage, contrary to the express policy provisions. Because the policy expressly provided that permission to use the vehicle must come from the named insured in order for the driver to be covered, it would be totally unreasonable to construe the policy as providing coverage to one driving with the express or implied permission of a designated operator who is not the named insured. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the ambiguous provisions of the policy should be construed in favor of coverage. This contention is also based on the lack of a definition of designated operator. However, as noted above, there is no ambiguity in the policy provision pertaining to coverage based on permissive use, and the lack of a definition of the words Numerical Designation of Operators does not create any ambiguity relating to coverage based on permissive use. Accordingly, the judgments of the lower courts are affirmed. CALOGERO, J., dissents. WATSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.