Government Employees v. UNITED SERVICES, 708 S.E.2d 877

In April 1999, Krystal Bass drove Sharon Bass's car after an argument with Krystal's boyfriend; Steven Parent was a passenger and later drove the car to confront Daniels; Krystal and others were present at the Pamplin and Parent houses prior to the collision.
Sharon's Policy (GEICO) insured the car and covered a permitted user who operates within the scope of permission; it provides an omnibus clause for permissive use by others.
Annie's Policy (GEICO Indemnity) insured use of a car owned by another, with per- sonal permission limited to Krystal as custodian and to a scope defined by permission.
GEICO and GEICO Indemnity denied coverage after claims were presented, asserting Steven lacked permission to operate the car; Laffey filed a lawsuit seeking coverage under his uninsured/underinsured motorist policy.
Circuit Court ruled Steven had permission under both policies and held both GEICO and GEICO Indemnity liable for the collision; GEICO appealed to determine the scope of permission under each policy.
Court reverses parts of circuit court order: Annie's Policy does not cover Steven’s use as it was beyond the permission scope; Sharon's Policy coverage is not extended to the second permittee for this use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Steven's use fell within Krystal's permission under Annie's Policy.	Laffey argues Krystal permitted use by anyone and Steven had permission.	GEICO Indemnity argues the use exceeded Krystal's permissible scope.	Annie's Policy does not cover Steven's use; beyond scope of permission.
Whether Steven's use fell within the omnibus clause of Sharon's Policy.	Steven had implied permission through Krystal's general use.	Use exceeded the permission Krystal could reasonably convey to Steven.	Sharon's Policy does not extend coverage to Steven; second-permittee use beyond first-permittee permission.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tiller, 189 Va. 544, 53 S.E.2d 814 (Va. 1949) (omnibus clause broadens coverage for insureds and permissive users)
Virginia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Appalachian Power Co., 228 Va. 72, 321 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 1984) (implied permission arises when named insured entrusts vehicle to another for general use)
Robinson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 190 Va. 368, 57 S.E.2d 93 (Va. 1950) (first permittee may limit second permittee's use; facts determine scope)
Columbia Cas. Co. v. Hoohuli, 50 Haw. 212, 437 P.2d 99 (Haw. 1968) (permission scope considerations for omnibus coverage (cited as supportive analogy))
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 186 Va. 658, 43 S.E.2d 863 (Va. 1947) (omnibus/permission concepts in initial permissions)
Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Harlow, 191 Va. 64, 59 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 1950) (omnibus coverage considerations under permissive use)
Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 578 S.E.2d 781 (Va. 2003) (evidence weight and credibility affect findings in bench trials)
Cheatham v. Gregory, 227 Va. 1, 313 S.E.2d 368 (Va. 1984) (standard for appellate review of bench trial credibility)
Barnes v. Hampton, 149 Va. 740, 141 S.E. 836 (Va. 1928) (proof and weight of testimony in non-jury trial)