Griffitts v. Old Republic Insurance Company
Missouri Supreme Court
550 S.W.3d 474 (2018)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
James Campbell (codefendant), an employee of BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) (codefendant), was driving a company vehicle when he rear-ended Ricky Lee Griffitts (plaintiff). Campbell had permission to use the vehicle to commute to remote BNSF jobsites and for personal use while there. BNSF had no express rule, but employees routinely used company vehicles for those purposes without BNSF objecting. On the day of the accident, Campbell arrived at a motel near a remote jobsite, drank with other employees, slept briefly, and then left in the company vehicle. Within moments he rear-ended Griffitts. Campbell’s blood-alcohol level tested over twice the legal limit. Griffitts brought multiple lawsuits, obtaining a $1.75 million judgment against Campbell, then filed a garnishment action to collect from Campbell, BNSF, and its insurer, Old Republic Insurance Company (codefendant). Griffitts argued that Campbell was a permissive user under the omnibus clause of BNSF’s insurance policy, which covered anyone using a covered vehicle with the insured’s permission. The trial court found Campbell did not have permission to use the vehicle when the accident occurred, because BNSF policy prohibited using alcohol while operating company vehicles. The court reasoned that company policy set the parameters of Campbell’s permission to use the vehicle and granted judgment for BNSF and Old Republic. Griffitts appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.