I got a call the other day from a woman was in an auto accident and who wanted to know whether I could help her.  She said that she suffered a personal injury as a result of an auto accident but was told by another attorney that she had no case.  Apparently, the driver who hit her was uninsured and, according to the car owners insurance carrier, did not have permission to drive the vehicle.  She said that the lawyer told her that since she did not have uninsured motorist coverage, and because the owner of the vehicles insurance carrier had already denied coverage there was nothing he could do. 

Well, even in the event that there is no insurance coverage for the auto accident, a victim of an auto accident still has the option of suing the negligent driver personally in order to obtain compensation for her injuries and mental anguish.  Of course, trying to monetarily recover from a person who doesnt have auto insurance can often prove to be difficult, if not impossible which if I had to guess was probably the reason why my now client was turned away by the first lawyer she visited. 

After doing some legal research of my own, however, I decided to take her case.  My research showed that Louisiana law disfavors insurance exclusions based on lack of permissive use.  You see, here, the insurance company of the driver's vehicle claimed that coverage did not apply because the driver neither had express nor implied permission to drive the vehicle.  What I discovered after researching this issue is that whether such permission existed is a question of fact.  And simply because an insurance company says that the negligent driver did not have the requisite permission does not make it true.  The ultimate determination of whether coverage was exists is left for the trier of fact (judge or jury) and, based on the caselaw which I reviewed, often goes in favor of the victim of the auto accident which, if you think about it, makes good sense.  Sure, if the car was stolen, I can understand why the owner of the vehicles insurance carrier should not be on the hook.  But otherwise, what's implied permission??  It would appear to me that, unless a car is stolen, the driver has implied permission.  Of course, I might be biased.

So, I took the case and filed suit and well see what happens.  If nothing else, I researched an area of the law which undoubtedly I will encounter again in my practice and forged a relationship with a new client.  My point is, you never know how these things may turn out.  Maybe this case has the perfect set of facts around it for a judge to issue a ruling that denying insurance coverage because of a lack of implied permission from the owner is against public policy? 

Richard