Opinion ID: 1058048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sharon's policy

Text: Sharon's Policy covered Steven's use of the car only if the use was with the permission of the named insured, i.e., Sharon, provided the use was within the scope of such permission. The parties agree that there is no evidence that Sharon either met Steven before the collision or expressly granted him permission to use the car. GEICO concedes that under Code § 38.2-2204(A) Sharon's permission may be express or implied. When a named insured entrusts a car to another for his general use, the person so entrustedi.e., the first permitteealso may permit a third person to use the cari.e., the second permittee. In such instances, we have held that the second permittee has the implied permission of the named insured to use the vehicle. Virginia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Appalachian Power Co., 228 Va. 72, 77, 321 S.E.2d 84, 87 (1984). The second permittee then is covered under the policy of the named insured. Code § 38.2-2204(A) (No policy or contract of bodily injury or property damage liability insurance, covering liability arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle . . . shall be issued or delivered in this Commonwealth . . . unless the policy contains a provision insuring the named insured, and any other person using or responsible for the use of the motor vehicle . . . with the expressed or implied consent of the named insured, against liability for death or injury sustained, or loss or damage incurred within the coverage of the policy or contract as a result of negligence in the operation or use of such vehicle . . . by the named insured or by any such person.) Code § 38.2-2204, the omnibus clause, is a remedial statute enacted to serve the public policy of broadening the coverage of automobile liability insurance for the protection of the injured persons. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tiller, 189 Va. 544, 548-49, 53 S.E.2d 814, 816 (1949). Whether a particular operator of a vehicle comes within such coverage depends on the facts of each case. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Harlow, 191 Va. 64, 68, 59 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1950). Accordingly we have resolved coverage questions by determining whether the actions of a permittee who operated the vehicle were consistent with the scope of the actual or implied permission from the named insured. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 189 Va. at 549, 53 S.E.2d at 816 (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 186 Va. 658, 666-67, 43 S.E.2d 863, 867 (1947)). However, we have not addressed directly the circumstances in which a permittee vested with general use permission from the named insured may limit coverage under the omnibus clause to a second permittee by imposing restrictions on the use of the vehicle. In Robinson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 190 Va. 368, 57 S.E.2d 93 (1950), we considered the argument that operation of the vehicle by a second permittee beyond the scope of permission granted by the first permittee negated coverage of the second permittee under the omnibus clause. In that case, the first permittee, who had been given general use of the vehicle by the named insured, loaned the vehicle to a second permittee but did not loan the car to the second permittee for his general personal use. Id. at 372, 57 S.E.2d at 95. The second permittee was using the vehicle for his personal use at the time of the accident. We concluded that, considering the facts of that case, a jury could find that the use by the second permittee was reasonably within the scope of his authority to drive the car. Id. at 372-73, 57 S.E.2d at 94-95. Although coverage under the omnibus clause was sustained in Robinson, we acknowledged that under different facts coverage could be limited under the omnibus clause for a second permittee based on the scope of permission received from the first permittee. Whether the second permittee exceeded such permission was a factual issue to be resolved by the fact-finder. Id. at 373, 57 S.E.2d at 95; see also Columbia Cas. Co. v. Hoohuli, 50 Haw. 212, 437 P.2d 99, 106 (1968) (opining as dictum that a first permittee may limit the permission of a second permittee). This case presents such facts. We hold that a first permittee with general use has authority to permit either general use or to impose such limits on use by a second permittee as the first permittee may find prudent, just as a named insured may limit use by a first permittee. Thus, we may assume without deciding that Krystal had permission for general use from Sharon and thus, pursuant to the omnibus clause, Stephen had Sharon's implied permission to use the car. However, we have determined for the purposes of Annie's Policy that Stephen's use of the car at the time of the accident, unlike that of the second permittee in Robinson, was beyond the scope of the permission given him by Krystal, the first permittee. Just as the remedial purpose of the omnibus clause is not extended to provide coverage when the first permittee operates a vehicle beyond the scope of permission received, it should not be extended to circumstances in which a second permittee operates the vehicle beyond the scope of permission received from the first permittee who `st[ands] in the shoes' of the named insured. Virginia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 228 Va. at 78, 321 S.E.2d at 87 (quoting Robinson, 190 Va. at 371, 57 S.E.2d at 94). Accordingly, we will reverse that portion of the circuit court's judgment extending coverage for the collision under Sharon's Policy.