Court Opinion

ID: 9762173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:14:37.941471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:31.406556
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Allstate urges in its motion for rehearing that neither Darla Rhodes nor Robert Snyder could be driving with the permission of the named insured, J. B. Rhodes, because Mr. Rhodes had no power to grant or refuse permission to drive the car since it was not established that he was the owner. Authorities cited by Allstate supporting this argument involved situations in which the non-owner named insured had no control over the use of the insured automobile.*7731 In this case, it is undisputed that the named insured parent retained the certificate of title in his name and that he gave permission of use to his minor daughter. The parent-child relationship here governed how Darla used the car, since it is undisputed that both Darla and J. B. Rhodes recognized that Darla’s use was subject to the instructions given her by her father.2 Since this control existed, J. B. Rhodes could give permission to Darla and impliedly to Robert Snyder within the terms of the Allstate policy.
Motion for Rehearing is overruled.

. United States Cas. Co. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 208 F.2d 451 (5th Cir. 1953) ; Didlake v. Standard Ins. Co., 195 F.2d 247 (10th Cir. 1952). In Mason v. Allstate Insurance Co., 12 A.D.2d 138, 209 N.Y.S. 2d 104 (1960), neither the father nor the child held title to the car. See also 4 A.L.R.3d 10 § 3[a], 7 Blashfield, Automobile Law and Practice 599 (3rd ed. 1966).

. See Osborne v. Security Ins. Co., 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 318 P.2d 94 (1957).