*1 345 suggеsted no state interests justify sufficient to the restriction on rights challenged constitutional ap- on this
peal. paint We need not with a broad
brush this case. Liverpool, See New Philadelphia
York and
S.S. Co. v. Com-
33, 39,
Emigration,
missioners
113 U.S.
352, 355,
(1885).
S.Ct.
need not hold 84.830 unconstitutional. apply”
We can “tailor and 84.830 “in a
manner that avoids” such a result. God-
frey Georgia, 420, 428, v. 446 U.S. 1759, 1764, (1980).
S.Ct.
used to respondent of his
make a contribution to a candidate for elec-
tion to the Repre- United States House of
sentatives. Section 84.830 would remain a political
viable constraint on activity not
related to election to Federal office. COMPANY,
ROYAL INDEMNITY
Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
Irving SHULL, al., J. et
Defendants-Appellants.
Supreme Court of
En Banc. 1984.
Rehearing Denied March *2 agreed parties to submit case to on documentary
the court includ- evidence ing depositions of Simon and of the Hertz counter attendant. Because nature of this and the absence submission testimony, of live the trial court’s assess- credibility plays mеnt of a minimal role factual appears case. little Simon, dispute. were Shull Feldman standing together. Hertz counter apparently latter two had assumed they eligible rent a car would not be they from Hertz because were under dealings Simon carried on the There is counter attendant. no evidence Goldblatt, Goldblatt, A. Steven Samuel her any there was discussion with Michener, Kirby, William R. John A. St. would It is clear about who drive car. Louis, defendants-appellants. for inquiry also that she made no about who James, Louis, plaintiff- for William F. St. gave no directions about drive respondent. who would to drive the car be authorized and who would not.
BLACKMAR, Judge.
contained, just
following pro-
signaturе,
Simon’s
above
declaratory judgment
This
action is es-
vision:
sentially a suit between two insurance com-
any
shall
Vehicle
NOT
panies,
liability
with
claimants
interested
persоn except
follow-
Customer and the
spectators. Plaintiff-Respondent Royal In-
Operators
Authorized
who must
demnity
liability
Company issued a
insur-
Cus-
validly licensed to drive and havе
policy
Company,
ance
Hertz
de-
Rental
permission: persons 21 or
prior
tomer’s
signed
provide
for
who are members
Customer’s
driving
Hertz’s
while
customers
family
permаnently
immediate
reside
automobiles rented from Hertz.
household;
employer,
in Customer’s
Company,
Farm Mutual Insurance
defend-
officer,
regular
partner,
or a
executive
ant-appellant,
poli-
had issued an insurance
Customer;
employee of
additional autho-
cy to the father
Lawrence Feldman
operatоr(s) approved by
rized
Lessor
provide
which would not
writing.
agrees
permit
not to
Customer
Hertz
were found to
person
other
with-
use of Vehicle
age for Lawrencе.
prior
Lessor’s
written consent.
out
question
was rented
provision
is no indication this
Columbia,
agent
Hertz’s
at the
Missouri
Royal In-
called
Simon’s attention.
airport
Jeffrey
age
on
Octo-
car
never
demnity
which
renters
the car as an
ber
1979. Simon obtained
see,
clause
contained a standard omnibus
cousin, Shelley
accommodation to
Shull
defining insured to include
Larry
was a friend of
and to
using
other
an owned
while
driving
or
hers. Simon had
intention
permission of
automobile ... with
himself, at least on its
riding in the car
provided his actual
the named insured
travelled
trip.
initial
Shull
Feldman
(if
operation
operating)
he is not
Louis,
grandmother,
her
party
for a
St.
actual
thereof is within
use
They
also Simon’s аunt.
who was
scope
permission
of such
...
evening,
that same
returning to Columbia
provided that
driving,
a collision oc- The rental
when
with
furnished
liability insurance
them were killed.
in which both of
curred
any operator
us,
customer and
autho-
ble from the
before
mentioned
one now
lessor,
rized
that the coverage
“operation”
both
“use” of
rental car.
void in
Mexico. The
includ-
synonymous
operation
held that
eight prohibitions
ed
on uses of the
“driving,”
that “use” is a
broader
of which is
none
shown
purpose
term referring to the
for which the
have
certainly
been violated. There was
employed.
car was
One
use an auto-
*3
nothing
agreement
in the
which said that
she is
operating.
mobile which he or
not
coverage
there would be no
if
insurance
a We
the
of
concluded that
driver
the auto-
person other than the lessee were to drive mobile
involved Weathers was covered
in
car. The
the
did
that
insurance,
by liability
though
even
he was
customer
the
liable to Hertz for
lessee,
though
not the
even
оpera-
his
damage
all
to the
customer
prohibited
tion
a by
of the automobile was
permitted
it
to be
reading
literal
of
terms of the
the
rental
operatоr.
unauthorized
The contract
lan-
agreement.
held,
prohibition,
we
did
guage
virtually
seems to be
identical
to
not void the
is
insurance
There
Royal Indemnity
Weathers v.
used in
that
strong
a
in
suggestion Weathers that
the
Co.,
(Mo.
1979).
rental car determinative the failure of makes named insured under 303.190.- a omnibus Hertz cоunter attendant Simon ask 2(2) base our remains valid. We did not Do the rent- question: you intend violate observation, and decision on this Weathers permit Feldman to drive al cаse, present but do not do so as to the the car? leasing simply suggest that an automobile effectively company which its les tenders complete during over the car see dominion special duty
the term of the lease clear under which
make the circumstances furnished. nearly years decided five
Weathers
ago, and for several books the rental to It con-
months before Simon. leas- guidance tained clear automobilе STATE of insurers, companies if there and their Plaintiff-Respondent, genuine concerns about operate their vehicles. actually leased explicit FOSTER, The lessor could ask and obtain Lawrence the car. Defendant-Appellant. information as to who would drive listed, If others besides the customer were highly express permis- probable it is Missouri Court or, least, given, sion District, Southern Any actual objection would be voiced. ob- Two. Division appar- voiced. lesson jection could be taken, ently was or else the lessor was 31, 1984. Jan. the rented car indifferent as to who drove Rehearing or Denied Motion for Transfer charges were secured. 21, 1984. Feld- poliсy issued to State Farm’s Application Transfer Denied parents provides that it shall man’s March by the if a vehicle used apply “non-owned” organization in the insured owned if the insured or
“car business” and coverage applicable
owner qualifications have part. Both
whole here, met in view our
been Royal policy. therefore, pro does
State Farm
vide case is judgment reversed and the con- entry judgment of a
remanded for opinion. with this
sistent WELLIVER, C.J., HIG-
RENDLEN, BILLINGS, JJ., concur.
GINS, GUNN
DONNELLY, J., separate dissents in
opinion filed.