negligent entrustment doctrine recognized but not part of the analysis in insurance policy coverage case
How later courts described this case
- negligent entrustment doctrine recognized but not part of the analysis in insurance policy coverage case
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Northern Insurance Co. of New York v. Ekstrom, 13 Brief Times Rptr. 1555 (1989)
Hilberg v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 761 P.2d 236, 238-39 (Colo.App.1988); Lahey v. Benjou, 759 P.2d 855, 857 (Colo.App.1988); Butcher v. Cordova, 728 P.2d 388, 389-91 (Colo.App.1986); Baker v. Bratrsovsky, 689 P.2d 722, 723-24 (Colo.App.1984); cf. United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Day, 657 P.2d 981, 982 n. 1 (Colo.App.1982) (negligent entrustment doctrine recognized but not part of the analysis in insurance policy coverage c…
The opinion
STERNBERG, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
This homeowners liability insurance policy says it does not cover injuries or damage “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation [or] use ... of any motor vehicle owned or operated by ... any insured.” I view this language as being an unambiguous statement excluding coverage in this case.
In Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sunstrum, 315 N.W.2d 154 (Mich.App.1981) the court reasoned that “negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle as a cause of action, is derived from the more general concepts of ownership, use or operation of a motor vehicle.” The Michigan court reasoned that “although the act of negligently entrusting a motor vehicle is an essential (if not the primary) element of the tort, liability giving rise to the tort is not actually triggered until the motor vehicle is used in a negligent manner resulting in injury.” In Bankert v. Threshermen’s Mutual Insurance Co., 105 Wis.2d 438 , 313 N.W.2d 854 (App.1981) the court concluded that entrusting a vehicle to one “was an exercise of the powers of ‘ownership’ and ‘use’ of the vehicle,” and that “entrustment of a vehicle was but a form of ‘use’.” I am in agreement with the reasoning of these two recent decisions.
I would reverse the judgment and grant the relief sought by the insurer.