Potentiality of Coverage
Negligence-Auto

Non-permissive driver of car not covered by insured's policy.
Atkinson v. Snodgrass
No. 11-05-00011-CV(Tex. App. March 16, 2006) 

    The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a negligent entrustment case against an insurer and its insured where a third party drove the insured's vehicle without permission, ruling that a non-permissive user was not covered by the automobile insurance policy.

    Nancy Snodgrass was an insured of Texas Farm Bureau Insurance under an automobile liability policy. Snodgrass entrusted her vehicle to Ted Horn so he could repair it. Without Snodgrass' permission, Horn drove the vehicle 45 miles on personal business. On his way back home, Horn was involved in an accident with Gary Atkinson.

    Atkinson sued Snodgrass and Texas Farm for negligent entrustment of the vehicle to Horn. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Snodgrass and Texas Farm. and Atkinson appealed.

    Non-permissive user not covered by auto policy. Where an insured does not expressly authorize use of his vehicle, the driver of the vehicle may still be a permissive user. Courts use a minor deviation rule to decide whether the user is covered. A user is not covered if he undergoes a deviation that is so gross that it destroys permission as a matter of law.

    The materiality of a deviation is measured by distance, time or purpose. The court of appeals found that Horn was not a permissive user as a matter of law when he drove Snodgrass' car 45 miles on a personal frolic. Snodgrass only entrusted the vehicle to Horn for its repair.

    The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Snodgrass and Texas Farm, ruling that Horn was a non-permissive user not covered under the liability policy.

Strafford Texas Insurance Law & Litigation Alert
May 15, 2006