Opinion ID: 2997424
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anyone else while using with your permis-

Text: sion a covered “auto” you own, hire or bor- row . . . . Indiana1 follows the “liberal rule” on permissive use. See Vanliner Ins. Co. v. Sampat, 320 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2003); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gonterman, 637 N.E.2d 811, 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). Pursuant to this rule: [O]ne who has permission of an insured owner to use his automobile continues as such a permittee while the car remains in his possession, even though that use may later prove to be for a purpose not con- templated by the insured owner when he entrusted the automobile to the use of such permittee. Gonterman, 637 N.E.2d at 813. Nevertheless, when an owner has placed restrictions on the use of a vehicle, violations of such restrictions may terminate permission. Id. at 814. “In a coverage dispute, permissive use cannot be implied when an express restriction on the scope of permission prohibits the use at issue.” Id. In the case at bar, Ryder did not authorize Keller to use its trailer with a tractor bearing Ryder's placards and ICC 1 The parties do not dispute that Indiana law governs this issue. 8 No. 03-1225 authority. To the contrary, the Ryder/Keller subcontractor agreement, pursuant to which Nance was acting when he had the accident, provided that all runs done pursuant to the agreement would use E.C. Trucking owned tractors bearing Keller placards and ICC authority. Keller did not obtain permission to use the trailer involved in the accident and, because permissive use is a prerequisite for coverage under the Old Republic policy, the district court did not err by finding that the policy does not cover the accident. Carolina Casualty contends that Ryder gave implied permission to use the trailer because, according to Carolina Casualty, the same trailer would have been used had the originally scheduled tractor not experienced mechanical difficulties. But permissive use cannot be implied when, as here, an express restriction prohibits that use. See Warner Trucking, Inc. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 686 N.E.2d 102, 107 (Ind. 1997) (“[I]mplied permission is inadequate as a matter of law to overcome [an] express restriction upon permission”).