The court decision is flawed. It is well established that one “permissive user” cannot extend permission to another party without the consent of the owner. Teach the drunk loser a lesson and let him figure out how to pay for his medical expenses.
I agree a non-permissive user of the vehicle should not be entitled to coverage. I’m curious if the father pressed charges of unauthorized use of the vehicle since they are calling it an “unlawful taking”.
Obviously this father knew his son did not have a driver’s license and I would suspect he knew there were other issues with this kid; to the point of making the kid aware he was not to drive the vehicle. Why would you then hand the keys over to your son’s girlfriend? Birds of a feather….poor judgment in my opinion.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The court decision is flawed. It is well established that one “permissive user” cannot extend permission to another party without the consent of the owner. Teach the drunk loser a lesson and let him figure out how to pay for his medical expenses.
I agree a non-permissive user of the vehicle should not be entitled to coverage. I’m curious if the father pressed charges of unauthorized use of the vehicle since they are calling it an “unlawful taking”.
Obviously this father knew his son did not have a driver’s license and I would suspect he knew there were other issues with this kid; to the point of making the kid aware he was not to drive the vehicle. Why would you then hand the keys over to your son’s girlfriend? Birds of a feather….poor judgment in my opinion.