Opinion ID: 1058048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the circuit court's judgment

Text: The circuit court announced its ruling from the bench: Quite candidly, it was difficult for me to believe the testimony of a lot of the witnesses, and I assure you, particularly the testimony of Krystal and her mother. If either of you or any of you watched Krystal as she testified, every time she startedgot stammered in any way, she would look to her mother for assurances over what she was saying, every time. She wasn't sure if she was testifying to what her mother wanted her to testify. . . . . And . . . to have somebody come in, such as [Sharon] and say, Oh, I have told my daughter that she is to never ever let someone else drive this car, and the daughter comes in and says, Yes, that's exactly what she told me, and I never let anybody else drive the car. The only thing that gives me any problem in this case is that no one testified that [Sharon] had ever seen anyone else drive this vehicle. . . . . The everyday conduct that [Krystal] exhibited, and the use of the vehicle, I don't believe for a moment that nobody else drove this car. I have every belief that, in fact, anybody that wanted to use this car used it. Is that sufficient to say that there is no dispute as to whether or not the prohibition that the mother testified to was sufficient? And I think that's the only question that I have in this case. I don't have any doubt about [Annie's Policy]. That policy is going to be effective as far as this Court is concerned. Krystal allowed people to use that car. I have every reason to believe that from the evidence here, that Steven had the permission. He had the keys. That's the way I read the evidence, so I don't have any problem with that whatsoever. The only one that gives me a problem is whether or not . . . the course of conduct set forthand I agree that the case says it's irrelevant who owned the car[ b]ut I say for all practical purposes in this case[,] that the daughter was the owner of this vehicle. [W]ho used the vehicle? The mother said they used the vehicle occasionally to take trips. I have very little confidence in the conduct of the mother. . . . . I think the course of conduct in this was general use of the vehicle. I'm going to [find] both policies effective. Accordingly, the circuit court entered a final order that Steven was entitled to coverage under both Sharon's Policy and Annie's Policy. We awarded GEICO and GEICO Indemnity this appeal.