The Supreme Court of Missouri has determined that an employee's use of a vehicle was within the scope of the permission granted by his employer, despite the fact that he violated a company policy by driving the vehicle while intoxicated, and the insurer, Old Republic Insurance Co., is responsible for coverage after a drunk-driving collision occurred. The case is Griffitts v. Old Republic Ins. Co., No. SC96740, 2018 Mo. LEXIS 241 (July 3, 2018).

In 2009, James Campbell was the foreman of a tie gang, a group of railroad employees who travel to replace railroad ties. His employer, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) gave Campbell use of a company vehicle. BNSF had no express policy depicting when the employee driver could use the vehicle while traveling to, staying near and working at an out-of-town job site. There was a policy in place prohibiting an employee from driving a company vehicle while intoxicated, but there was no rule requiring BNSF employees to be on the clock or in the course or scope of their employment to drive a company vehicle while traveling to, staying near, and working at an out-of-town job site.

Campbell traveled from his home in Tennessee to a motel in Springfield where he was staying while working at a BNSF job site nearby. He joined other BNSF employees for dinner, barbeque, and played video games and drank alcohol. After a time, Campbell's coworkers walked him back to his room where he fell asleep for a few hours. Around 8:30 he woke up and left the hotel in the company vehicle. Soon later, Campbell drove the car into the rear of a car driven by Ricky Lee Griffitts, who was stopped at a traffic light. Griffitts sustained serious injuries from the collision. Campbell admitted to responding officers that he had been drinking and felt intoxicated. Campbell was arrested and testing revealed that his blood alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit. He was fired for violating the Company Rules.

Of the lawsuits that came out of this collision, one resulted in a $1.475 million judgment for Griffitts and against Campbell. After it was unpaid for 30 days, Griffitts filed an action against Old Republic claiming that Campbell was a permissive user under the omnibus clause of the insurance policy issued by Old Republic to BNSF. The circuit court considered the issue of whether Campbell, at the time of the collision, had permission to use the company vehicle under the omnibus clause of the policy. The circuit court determined that the Company Rules were rules of authorization or permission and because Campbell was directly violating a Company Rule at the time of the accident, they determined that he did not have permission to use the company vehicle at that time and thus was not a permissive user under the omnibus clause of the policy. The circuit court ruled in favor of Old Republic.

The Supreme Court disagreed. They stated that “[b]ecause Campbell had broad, almost unfettered permission to use the company vehicle at the time of the accident, it does not matter, for purposes of insurance coverage under BNSF's omnibus clause, that Campbell was drunk, because once 'use ha[s] been permitted it is immaterial how the vehicle was operated,'”

The Supreme Court of Missouri unanimously agreed that BNSF has coverage under its Old Republic policy for the $1.475 million judgment.

Editor's Note: Automobile liability insurance policies sometimes contain a provision called the “omnibus clause.” This clause extends coverage of the policy to any person using or responsible for the use of the insured vehicle, provided that the actual use of the vehicle is within the permission of the named insured. In this case, the insured, BNSF, had expressly authorized Campbell with use of the vehicle, and did not tell him he was not allowed to use the vehicle to run personal errands and get meals, while he was working at an out-of-town job site. Campbell had previously used company vehicles for such purposes without any instruction to the contrary or discipline from BNSF. In fact, BNSF knew that Campbell had no other means of transportation while he was working at this particular job site. These facts, and more, lead the Supreme Court to determine that Campbell's violation of the Company Rules were restrictions on the operation, not use, of the vehicle.