Court Opinion

ID: 9642685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:06:17.54879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:50.988289
License: Public Domain

Shangraw, J.,
concurring. I agree that there must be a reversal. I would do so on a basis other than that expressed in the opinion.
The omnibus clause contained in the policy, or a clause of like import, has been considered in many jurisdictions. It has produced widely variant philosophical concepts which have been classified generally in three categories — that is, the liberal or so-called “initial permission” rule, the moderate or “minor deviation” rule, and the strict or “conversion” rule.
Under the initial permission rule if a person has permission to. use an automobile in the first instance, any subsequent use, short of theft or the like, while it remains in his possession, though not within the contemplation, of the parties, is a permissive use within the terms of the omnibus clause. See, Annotation, 5 A.L.R. 2d 600, 629-36 (1949), also, Matits v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 33 N.J. 488, 166 A.2d 345.
By the minor deviation rule the permittee is covered under the omnibus clause so long as his deviation from the permissive use is minor in nature. See 5 A.L.R. 2d, supra, 636-43, and cases cited. This means, fundamentally, that the vehicle must be used for a purpose reasonably within the scope of the permission granted.
The view under the strict or conversion rule is that any deviation from the time, place or purpose specified by the person granting permission is sufficient to take the permittee outside the coverage of the omnibus. Again see, 5 A.L.R. 2d, supra, 626-29. For additional authority discussing these rules, see, 7 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, §4366-68, at 170, 172, 178 (1942).
I agree that the strict conversion rule is too narrow. While some states have adopted this rule, it appears to be the minority view.
*277The minor deviation rule takes a position between the initial permission rule and the conversion rule. It adopts all of the requisites of the conversion rule with one important modification — that protection will be afforded if the use is not a gross violation of the terms of the bailment even though it may amount to -a deviation. What is a minor deviation? Conversely what is a major deviation such as to result in a gross violation of the terms of the bailment? Why should an injured person be required to litigate these questions, or be subject to the delays incident thereto? It is my judgment that this rule is too elastic and affords too many escape hatches. It breeds litigation, such as here.
The states favoring the minor deviation rule and the initial permission rule appear to be pretty closely divided.
The rationale in support of the initial permission rule is that even an ordinary automobile liability insurance contract is as much for the benefit of members of the public as for the benefit of the named or additional insured and that therefore upon an injury occurring, it would be undesirable to permit litigation as to the use made of the automobile, the scope of permission given, the purposes of the bailment, and the like. 5 A.L.R. 2d, supra, pages 629, 630. This reasoning finds affirmance in the case of Konrad v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 11 Ill. App. 2d 503, 137 N.E.2d 855, 861. Also see, Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 101 Conn. 369, 125 Atl. 866.
The plaintiff has urged the adoption of the initial permission rule by this court. My disposition of this case would be on this basis. I favor this rule and believe the courts are generally moving in this direction.