Court Opinion

ID: 9537108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:12:36.67849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:04.131149
License: Public Domain

DONALDSON, Justice
(dissenting)-.
I dissent. This Court has not yet passed on which of the three rules to follow regarding the extent of coverage under an omnibus clause in an insurance policy. Recent decisions from other states appear to favor the “liberal” or “initial permission” rule which extends coverage if the permit-tee has initial permission to use the automobile even though the actual use is beyond such initial permission. I would be willing to adopt this rule in Idaho but the ■majority extends this rule much further by granting coverage to a sub-permittee even where there is an express limitation by the insured not to allow anyone but the original permittee to drive the automobile. If this reasoning is followed to its logical conclusion, the next step will be to extend coverage to all minor drivers of a household even though the parents have expressly prohibited' them from driving the insured automobile. The result will be that insurance companies will require that all children who have a drivers license be listed as drivers of the insured automobile and parents will be forced to pay the higher rates for that coverage. I would follow the holding of this Court in Butterfield v. Western Casualty & Surety Co., 83 Idaho 79, 357 P.2d 944 (1960), and deny coverage.