Opinion ID: 4349677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Policy and Permissive Use

Text: In this case, State Farm agreed to provide the compulsory coverage limits to Ms. Brown’s estate to satisfy any claims arising from the alleged wrongful death of Mr. Elsass, but denied it was required to provide coverage beyond these statutory minimums because the terms of the Policy do not require it to do so.1 As relevant here, 1 The Policy provided liability coverage for bodily injury claims with limits of $250,000 per injured person and $500,000 per accident, Jt. App. at 169, considerably 5 the Policy provides that State Farm “will pay damages an insured becomes legally liable to pay because of . . . bodily injury to others . . . caused by an accident that involves a vehicle for which that insured is provided Liability Coverage by this policy.” Jt. App. at 200. The Policy defines an “insured” to include “any other person for his or her use of” the insured vehicle, provided the vehicle was “used within the scope of [the named insured’s] consent.” Id. at 176. Based on these Policy terms, the question presented on summary judgment was whether a reasonable jury could find that Ms. Brown was an insured person under the Policy at the time of the accident so that State Farm must pay up to the Policy’s limits for any liability she had for Mr. Elsass’s death. State Farm contended Ms. Brown was not an insured under the Policy because the undisputed facts establish that she was not using the Porsche within the scope of permission granted by State Farm’s named insured, Mr. Cheek, when the accident occurred. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to State Farm. We affirm.