378 S.W.3d 786
Ark. Ct. App.2010Background
- Hodges owned a 2002 Ford Explorer insured by Farm Bureau; Travis (16) borrowed Hodges’s vehicle without her knowledge for a night trip to pick up friends.
- Travis accessed the vehicle using Hodges’s garage code and left keys inside the car; Hodges was asleep and unaware at the time.
- Travis had previously used Hodges’s vehicle regularly and with Hodges’s apparent permission on prior occasions.
- Two of Travis’s passengers were injured in a later crash while he was driving Hodges’s vehicle.
- Farm Bureau sought a declaratory judgment that Travis was not a “covered person” under the policy; the circuit court granted summary judgment for Farm Bureau, finding no implied permission.
- The appellate court reversed, holding there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding implied permission and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Travis had implied permission to drive Hodges’s vehicle | Travis regularly drove the vehicle; Hodges never protested. | Hodges denied giving permission for Travis to drive that night. | Material factual issue; not resolved by summary judgment. |
| Whether the circuit court properly considered all circumstances to determine implied permission | Courts consider the relationship and course of conduct; issues for jury. | Only the specific act of taking the car matters; no implied permission. | Jury must evaluate all circumstances; question of permission for coverage. |
| Whether the “initial impression” or Hell or High Water rule applies to determine scope of permission | Rule supports coverage when initial entrustment existed. | Issue for the jury; not dispositive on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ison v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Co., 93 Ark.App. 502 (Ark. App. 2006) (implied permission may be inferred from conduct and relationship; initial permission affects coverage)
- Collins v. Morgan, 92 Ark.App. 95, 211 S.W.3d 14 (Ark. App. 2005) (courts consider usage and relationship in implied-permission analysis)
- Clark v. Progressive Ins. Co., 64 Ark.App. 313, 984 S.W.2d 54 (Ark. App. 1998) (permission may be more than mere tolerance; leave or license to drive)