Court Opinion

ID: 9598557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:09:52.95863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:42.030964
License: Public Domain

*48ROBERTS, J.,
dissenting.
I reject both the result of the opinion and the reasoning behind it and therefore dissent.
While the policy provides for collision coverage, it also includes a Driver Limitation endorsement which excludes coverage when the car is being driven by any person under 25 years of age. Therefore, there was no collision coverage and in order to find that the insured was covered under the policy it is necessary to find that a theft occurred; I cannot accept the majority’s conclusion that the son committed a theft in taking the car.
The majority relies on Nugent v. Union Auto Ins. Co., 140 Or 61, 13 P2d 343 (1932), for the proposition that the test of whether a theft has been committed should be "what 'the ordinary individual’ would consider to be a theft against which he was insured.” 44 Or App 46. Applying this test, I conclude that the ordinary individual would not consider a theft to have occurred when a car is temporarily taken and used by a minor child of the owner. Under the circumstances of this case, I conclude that no theft occurred and that no coverage is provided. I would affirm the trial court.