Opinion ID: 172959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The St. Paul Policy

Text: The St. Paul policy insured the general liabilities of the construction company owned by the driver's father, including liabilities arising from the use of covered autos. The policy's coverage limit for a single car accident was $1,000,000. Neither party disputes the truck involved in the accident was a covered auto under the policy. In the Auto Liability Protection portion of the policy, under a heading entitled Who is Protected Under This Agreement, the policy stated: Any permitted user. Any person or organization to whom you've given permission to use a covered auto you own, rent, lease, hire or borrow is a protected person. Aplt.App. at 65. Pursuant to this provision, St. Paul denied liability coverage for the driver's operation of the pickup truck on the day of the accident. In its letter to the teen driver's parents denying liability coverage, St. Paul stated, [the driver] admits to have previously taken the keys to the vehicle he was driving ... without the knowledge or permission of you, as his parents, or anyone associated with [the construction company]. Doc. 29, Amended Compl., Ex. B. Based on these facts, St. Paul concluded the driver was not a permissive user and therefore no coverage is provided to him under the ... automobile policy. Id. But St. Paul's denial of liability coverage did not answer whether the policy's UM coverage was triggered by the accident or whether the coverage would be available to C.J. and Jennifer. Indeed, the denial of liability coverage undergirds Long's argument that the UM coverage applies. In general, under the UM coverage, St. Paul agreed to pay all sums any protected person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an uninsured or underinsured vehicle. Aplt.App. at 79. Both C.J. and Jennifer were potentially protected persons under this UM coverage because they were riding in a covered auto. Id. at 81. But even assuming C.J. and Jennifer were protected persons, the question remains whether the truck at issue was uninsured at the time of the accident. The policy defines uninsured vehicle as including a vehicle for which an insurance or bonding company denies coverage. Id. at 80. Thus, Long argues St. Paul's denial of liability coverage for the accident made the truck an uninsured vehicle such that C.J. and Jennifer could recover UM benefits.