Minnesota Lawyer
In this appeal from summary-judgment dismissal of her declaratory-judgment action against respondent insurers following the death of her son in an automobile accident, appellant argued that the District Court erred by determining that (1) no special circumstances existed that would trigger coverage and (2) the juvenile driver was not an additional insured under the terms of his father’s policy. Appellant argued that the vehicle’s owner gave driver implied permission to use his car and, therefore, driver was driving the car with a reasonable belief that he had a legal right to do so, based on fact that owner left his keys in the car and that he may have permitted friends to use the car on other occasions. The Court of Appeals held that, based on the contract language of the policies, which excluded coverage for non-permissive drivers, and the undisputed facts, the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment to respondents. Affirmed.
A15-0520 Marshall v. Hoglund (Cook County)
