181 So. 3d 781
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Jan. 20, 2011, Water Works employee Lovell Ellis drove a company pickup to pick up passenger Raquel Coleman and crashed; Coleman suffered serious injuries.
- Ellis had an assigned Water Works truck and signed a written policy prohibiting personal use without prior written permission; employer contended he took the truck without permission and was later fired for unauthorized use and DWI.
- Coleman testified Ellis was texting and distracted when he crossed the fog line; she later refused Ellis’s request to lie about their relationship.
- Ellis’s deposition claimed he was en route to visit a sick aunt in Minden, that a co-owner (deceased) had authorized the trip, and that he swerved to avoid a log; he later pled guilty to DWI.
- United Fire’s business auto policy included an omnibus clause covering anyone using a covered auto “with your permission.” Coleman sued Ellis and United Fire; the trial court found Ellis 100% at fault and ruled the employer’s permission covered the use, entering judgment against Ellis and United Fire jointly.
- The appellate issue was whether the employer’s permission (express or implied) extended coverage under the omnibus clause despite policy prohibitions and the employee’s deviation and intoxication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Water Works’ permission (express or implied) made Ellis an insured under the omnibus clause when he crashed while on a personal deviation and later pled DWI | Coleman: Employer had given initial permission to use assigned truck to commute and for emergency calls; deviation to pick her up did not amount to theft or utter disregard, so coverage applies | United Fire: Ellis used the truck for an unauthorized personal errand in violation of written policy; no initial or continuing permission existed and deviation revoked any coverage | Court affirmed: factual finding of permission supported; deviation did not amount to theft or utter disregard, so omnibus clause covers Ellis’s use and insurer is liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. Hall, 181 So. 191 (La. 1938) (omnibus clause covers drivers using owner’s car with permission regardless of whether use conforms to original scope of permission)
- Waits v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Amer., 40 So.2d 746 (La. 1949) (coverage extends despite deviations unless conduct amounts to theft or utter disregard for safekeeping)
- Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 46 So.2d 744 (La. 1950) (same principle regarding scope of permission under omnibus clause)
- Perkins v. McDow, 615 So.2d 312 (La. 1993) (omnibus clause broadly construed to include permitted drivers despite deviations)
- Norton v. Lewis, 623 So.2d 874 (La. 1993) (coverage may be precluded when deviation shows utter disregard or theft)
- Manzella v. Doe, 664 So.2d 398 (La. 1995) (jurisprudence recognizing limits to permission when conduct evidences theft or extreme deviation)