Car Insurance

A Missouri appellate court held that a delivery truck driver was acting within the scope of her permission to operate her employer’s van when she was involved in a car accident after deviating from the most direct delivery route to run a personal errand.

Here, Fry was a delivery truck driver for Arnold Muffler, Inc. (AMI). AMI’s policy was that its drivers take the most direct route to make deliveries. AMI was insured by American Family Mutual Insurance Company under a policy that excluded coverage for persons exceeding the scope of AMI’s permission to use its vehicles.

While making a delivery, Fry deviated from the most direct route so that she could run a personal errand. Afterward, Fry was headed toward an auto parts store to make the delivery when she was involved in an accident with Noyes, who sued Fry and AMI for personal injuries.

American Family then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it was not obligated to defend Fry because she was using the insured vehicle outside the scope of AMI’s permission. The trial court held that Fry was covered by the insurance policy because, at the time of the accident, she had returned to a route designed to reach the auto parts store.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that courts have used the “minor deviation” rule to determine whether coverage exists when an employee deviates from the purpose for which the employer granted the employee permission to use its vehicle. Under this rule, the court said, if the use made by an employee is not a major violation of the employer’s orders, protection is afforded, even though it may have amounted to a violation. In determining whether a violation is minor, a court must consider the extent of the deviation in distance or time and the purpose for which the vehicle was given. Even if there is a deviation, if the employee has returned to his or her employer’s business and to a point where he or she is required to be in the performance of his or her duties, there may be coverage.