Odolecki v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. - 55 N.J. 542, 264 A.2d 38 (1970)

Rule:

Once the initial permission has been given by the named insured coverage is fixed, barring theft or the like.

Facts:

A car owner gave her son permission to drive her car with the admonition not to let anyone else drive it. Her son permitted his friend, plaintiff driver, to borrow the car. Plaintiff driver was involved in an accident with another car. Defendant insurer notified plaintiff that he was not covered by the car owner's policy for the personal injury actions against him because he was driving without the owner's permission. Plaintiff brought an action to have himself declared an additional insured, and the trial court denied relief. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the plaintiff be considered as an additional insured within the terms of the car owner’s policy? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On review, the court considered prior rulings based on the scope of permission given by the driver and the deviation from that permission. The court found that the "initial permission" rule allowed coverage if a person had permission to use the car, irrespective of any deviations from the scope of permission so long as the car remained in his possession. The court held that once an owner voluntarily handed over the car keys, the extent of permission the owner granted was irrelevant and, barring theft or the like, coverage was fixed. In reversing the lower court, the court held that plaintiff was an additional insured within the terms of the car owner's policy.