Odolecki v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Kathryn Zylka had an automobile-insurance policy with Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (Hartford) (defendant). The policy contained a standard omnibus clause, which stated that the insurance coverage extended to Zylka, her spouse, and any person driving the vehicle with Zylka’s or her spouse’s permission. Zylka gave her teenage son, Michael Zylka, permission to drive the vehicle over the summer holidays. However, Zylka expressly forbade Michael from letting anyone else drive the vehicle. Michael disobeyed that order and allowed his friend Douglas Odolecki (plaintiff) to use the vehicle. Odolecki got into an accident, injuring several individuals. The injured parties filed personal-injury actions against Odolecki. Hartford informed Odolecki that because he was driving the car without Zylka’s permission, he was not covered by the insurance policy, meaning that Hartford would not cover any damages assessed against him in the personal-injury actions. Odolecki sued Hartford to have himself declared an additional insured under Zylka’s policy. The trial court held in Hartford’s favor, concluding that under New Jersey precedents, the omnibus clause in Zylka’s policy did not extend coverage to Odolecki. Before the state appeals court could hear Odolecki’s appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court certified review to itself on its own motion.