Court Opinion

ID: 9779267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:41:56.440762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:24.511463
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
In its motion for rehearing or in the alternate for transfer of this case to the Court En Banc, National Indemnity Company concedes that there was no evidence in the transcript that Mooney paid a car allowance of $100 per month to Rinder-knecht. However, it points out that there was testimony to that effect in a deposition (of which the court’s opinion took cognizance) and asserts that in furtherance of justice the case should be remanded for retrial to permit the introduction of such evidence.
We recognize that on occasion this court has followed such course when there was indication of the existence of essential evidence which might produce a contrary result. This, however, is not that kind of a situation. Even with evidence before us that Mooney paid Rinderknecht a monthly car allowance of $100 per month, we would reach the same result. When an employer agrees to and does pay an employee a salary plus a specified sum per mile as reimbursement of expenses for use of the employee’s automobile, that does not constitute a hiring or renting of the employee’s car, absent express contractual provisions to the contrary. It constitutes only a reimbursement of expenses. Johnson v. Continental Casualty Co., 167 So. 114 (La.App.1936). The fact that instead of “keeping books” on mileage, the employer and employee agree on a flat monthly car expense reimbursement does not change the nature of the arrangement.
The National Indemnity policy contains no contractual provision which provides to the contrary. It has no definition of “hired automobile”. We note that the Commercial Union policy did have a definition of “hired automobile” which provides that “an automobile not owned by the named insured which is used under *471contract in behalf of, or loaned to, the named insured providing such automobile is not owned by or registered in the name of * * * (b) an employee or agent of the named insured who is granted an operating allowance of any sort for the use of such automobile.” Rinderknecht would fall within exclusion (b) thereof. Hence, if we use that definition (which is understood to be a fairly commonly used definition),1 the result would be exactly as specified in our opinion.
We have considered the other matters asserted in National Indemnity’s motion but conclude that they present no reason for granting a rehearing or for transferring this case to the Court En Banc. Accordingly, the motion is overruled.

. 7 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 4464, p. 492.