In a matter of first impression, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein ruled that a woman’s car insurance coverage extended to her son’s girlfriend, despite not being an insured under the policy, not living in the named insured’s home, nor having express permission to drive the vehicle.

In Nationwide Insurance v. Geico Insurance, Wendy Friedman-Forlano gave her son permission to operate her vehicle while he was attending school at Temple University. The son’s live in girlfriend also used the car with his permission. However, Friedman-Forlano did not expressly give the girlfriend permission nor was she even aware that her son’s girlfriend drove the vehicle.

Under Friedman-Forlano’s Nationwide insurance policy, individuals who were given permission by the named insured to operate the vehicle were provided coverage in the event of an accident. The policy also noted that the named insured’s permission could be express or implied. Nationwide filed a declaratory judgment action requesting the court to find that no coverage was afforded under the policy because Friedman-Forlano did not give the girlfriend either express or implied permission to operate the vehicle.

Relying on case law from other courts, Judge Bernstein ruled that the girlfriend had implied permission to drive the vehicle, as Friedman-Forlano’s express permission to her son included his ability to grant subsequent permission to use the vehicle. Judge Bernstein found that the son gave his girlfriend full control over the vehicle  and also pointed to the close relationship between Friedman-Forlano and the girlfriend.

Additionally, Friedman-Forlano never instructed her son not to let anyone else drive the vehicle.  Thus, Judge Bernstein concluded that a person given full permission to use a vehicle has the right to delegate the operation of the vehicle to another person.

Thanks to Sheri Flannery for her contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information.