Opinion ID: 2193379
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harris's Coverage under the Ferguson Policy

Text: [¶ 8] David Ferguson's automobile policy issued by Patrons provides that the insurer will pay damages for `bodily injury' or `property damage' for which any `insured' becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident. The policy defines an insured as [a]ny person using `your covered auto,' but excludes coverage for an insured [u]sing a vehicle without a reasonable belief that that `insured' is entitled to do so. [¶ 9] We have previously examined the reasonable belief exclusion and found that it is composed of the following elements: A person lacks a reasonable belief that he or she is entitled to use a vehicle if that person: (i) knows that he or she is not entitled to use the vehicle; or (ii) lacks objectively reasonable grounds for believing that he or she is entitled to use the vehicle. Craig v. Barnes, 1998 ME 110, ¶ 7, 710 A.2d 258, 260. In assessing whether a person possessed an objectively reasonable belief that he or she was entitled to use a vehicle, we recognized that a court must consider any fact relevant to the objective reasonableness of that person's belief, including ownership of the vehicle, permission to use the vehicle, relationship to the insured, prior use of the vehicle, and legal entitlement to drive. Id. ¶ 8, 710 A.2d at 260 (emphasis added). This list of relevant factors is, however, not exhaustive. [¶ 10] The court found that Harris had an objectively reasonable belief that he was entitled to use the truck. The court found that immediately upon arriving at the party, a confrontation ensued whereby Harris and Kurt Ferguson were ordered by an angry crowd to leave the party or else suffer bodily injury. The court found that Harris and Kurt quickly reentered the truck and Harris was in the driver's seat. The court found that given the exigency of the situation, there was no time for extended colloquy between Harris and Kurt regarding who should drive both men understood that they needed to quickly leave the party. Based on the exigency, the court concluded that Harris operated the truck with Kurt's permission, despite the existence of factors, such as both men being intoxicated and Harris not possessing a valid driver's licensethat absent the exigency may ordinarily undercut such a belief. The court's finding was not clearly erroneous. [¶ 11] Patrons argues that Harris could not reasonably believe that he was given permission because he did not inform Kurt that he did not hold a valid driver's license. Patrons's argument, however, ignores the circumstances under which Harris actually operated the vehicle. [5] In the heat of the moment, there was no time for Harris and Kurt to converse about whether Harris should or should not drive because he was unlicensed. Harris was in the driver's seat, had the keys on his person, and knew that he and Kurt had to quickly leave the party. Harris's failure to apprise Kurt that he failed to renew his license is not dispositive, given the alternative. Accordingly, the court did not err in finding that Harris was an insured under the automobile policy issued by Patrons.