1. The petition by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether there was coverage as an additional insured, and thus whether there existed any duty on its part to defend, sufficiently disclosed the existence of a justiciable controversy as to its "rights and other legal relations" as an interested party, as contemplated by the Declaratory Judgments Act ( Code Ann. § 110-1101 et seq.)
2. Whether the driver of a vehicle was an additional insured under the permissive use or omnibus clause of a liability policy carried by the owner is not dependent upon the existence or non-existence of a master servant relationship at the time of an accident.
3. The "first instance permission" rule does not obtain in this State. Consequently, whether one operating the vehicle of another was doing so with the owner's permission at the time of an accident is dependent upon whether his use of the vehicle was, at the time, within the permission granted when the driver was given possession, as bailee or otherwise, of the vehicle.
Frank Ditmyer and his wife, Patricia, each filed suit against Herman Henderson alleging that they had been injured by reason of Henderson's negligence when a pickup truck which he operated went past a stop sign and directly in front of an automobile driven by Mrs. Ditmyer and occupied by the husband, causing a collision.
Thereafter American Liberty Insurance Company brought a petition for declaratory judgment, naming as defendants Mr. and Mrs. Ditmyer, Herman Henderson and John Dollar Moree, the latter being the owner of the pickup truck, alleging that it had issued to Moree an automobile liability policy on the pickup truck which had been in force on the date of the collision between the truck and the Ditmyer car, that the policy carried a permissive use or omnibus clause, under which the Ditmyers were claiming that Henderson was an additional insured in that they were claiming that at the time of the collision he was driving the pickup truck with the permission of Moree, the owner, and that they would attempt to enforce against the plaintiff, American Liberty Insurance Company, any judgments obtained against Henderson. It was also alleged that the omnibus clause obligated the company to defend any suit filed as a result of any collision involving the pickup truck while being operated by a person with the permission of the named insured, but that it was the contention of the company that Henderson was operating the truck without Moree's permission, that he was not an additional insured under the policy and that it was under no obligation to defend the two pending actions against Henderson. Because of this controversy as to the coverage under the policy the company needed to have its rights declared relative to whether it must defend the suits or pay judgments that might be obtained.
After defensive pleadings were filed by the Ditmyers, American Liberty moved for a summary judgment, submitting in connection therewith the pleadings, affidavits of Moree, Henderson, A. J. Ardovino (verifying the policy) and Arvis Miller (Moree's business partner), plaintiff's answers to the Ditmyers' interrogatories, and the depositions of Moree and Henderson taken by the Ditmyers.
The Ditmyers submitted an opposing affidavit of D. D. Rentz and their defensive pleadings.
On the question of permissive use the evidence disclosed that Moree was engaged in a meat packing business at Albany, that he was in general charge and supervision of it, that Arvis Miller had a ten percent working interest in the business and was second in command, having full charge when Moree was away from the plant, and that on the date of the collision (a Saturday) a route salesman had called in to say that an order of weiners which was to go to the Prison Branch at Leesburg had been left off his truck and asked that the order be sent by another vehicle.
At noon time, when the plant usually closed on Saturdays, Miller directed Henderson to take the order of weiners down to Leesburg on a pickup truck. Henderson testified that he was first instructed to bring the vehicle back to Joe Nichols' Service Station, where all of the plant vehicles were left on weekends for servicing, but that as he started to leave Mr. Miller instructed him to bring the truck back to his house so that he might use it to haul some dirt for his yard, and told him that he would take him back over to the plant where he could pick up his own car. He delivered the wieners to the Prison Branch and returned to Albany, going to Miller's home but Miller had decided that he would not use the truck and instructed Henderson to take it directly to Nichols' Service Station and leave it and get somebody there to take him back to the plant for his car, and to call back on the telephone if he could not get somebody at the station to take him on to the plant, in which event Miller would pick him up and take him to it. Henderson left Miller's house at about 3:30 p. m., ostensibly to go to Nichols' place, but instead went first to a liquor store where he bought a half pint of whiskey and drank it, and then went to a drive-in which he estimated to be some ten miles off the route to Nichols' Service Station and there continued drinking until he became drunk. At 8 p. m., in his intoxicated condition, he started to leave for the plant and collided with the Ditmyers at the street intersection.
On being asked whether he had permission to go out to the drive-in Henderson replied in the negative and asserted that "if they had knowed I was going, they probably would have told me [not to go]; they probably wouldn't have let me do it." He was then asked whether he had thought he might get fired for doing it and answered, "Well, I don't know. I was just taking a chance." He testified that he did not usually drive the company vehicles, that his duties were in the plant and that his driving it was "an exceptional thing." He was asked: "Q. Now, did Mr. Moree ever authorize you to use any of his vehicles for your personal business? A. No, sir. Q. And had you ever used a truck before for your personal business? A. No, sir. . . . Q. Did you have Mr. Moree's permission to go on any personal business before you took it to Joe Nichols that afternoon? A. No, sir. Q. Did you know that you didn't have permission? A. Yes, sir."
Mr. Moree testified that except for Miller, who was a part owner in the business, the employees were not permitted to use company vehicles for their personal business, that they were not permitted to take the vehicles home overnight or on weekends. He knew that Henderson had a drinking problem, but he was not drinking when he took the pickup to go to Leesburg for delivering wieners to the Prison Branch. He had probably taken a truck on other trips of a similar nature, but when employees drive company trucks they do not have permission to use them on personal business. Whether any employee had ever stopped off to buy groceries while out on a trip with a company truck he did not know, but if so they had no permission to do it and it was in violation of instructions. They would be doing it on their own.
Mr. Miller testified he knew that Henderson took the pickup for delivering the wieners to the Prison Branch and that he had expected him to bring it by his house by 3:30 p. m., which he did; that upon his arrival he instructed Henderson to take the truck to Nichols Service Station and leave it, and that if somebody there could not take Henderson back to the plant to call him (Miller) on the phone and he would come over and take Henderson to the plant. He testified that Henderson was not to drive the truck anywhere else, and that he did not have permission to drive or use the truck other than to deliver it to the Nichols Service Station.
From a grant of the motion for summary judgment holding that the truck was not being used with the permission of the owner at the time of the collision and that there was, consequently, no coverage under the policy and relieving the company of any obligation to defend the suits, the Ditmyers appeal.
EBERHARDT, Judge.
1. The allegations and prayers of this petition clearly bring it within the ambit of the Declaratory Judgments Act ( Code Ann. § 110-1101 et seq.). The insurer was faced with the immediate necessity of accepting an obligation to defend the suits brought by the Ditmyers against Henderson or of repudiating the claimed obligation. It was faced with an immediacy of choice before rights might become fixed or affected by the rendition of judgments.
"Where an insurer denies coverage under a particular policy and seeks to relieve itself of its obligation to defend a pending suit against an insured because of circumstances pleaded which case doubt on the coverage of the policy as applied to those circumstances, there is such an immediacy of choice imposed upon it as to justify an adjudication by declaratory judgment." Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Peek, 112 Ga. App. 260 ( 145 S.E.2d 50). Accord: Mensinger v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 202 Ga. 258 ( 42 S.E.2d 628); Georgia Cas. c. Co. v. Turner, 86 Ga. App. 418 ( 71 S.E.2d 773); Parks v. Jones, 88 Ga. App. 188 ( 76 S.E.2d 449); Darling v. Jones, 88 Ga. App. 812 ( 78 S.E.2d 94); Griffin v. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 93 Ga. App. 801 ( 92 S.E.2d 871); Buffington v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 104 Ga. App. 139 ( 121 S.E.2d 270); Dearhart v. Reserve Ins. Co., 108 Ga. App. 347 ( 132 S.E.2d 809), reversed on other grounds in 219 Ga. 699 ( 135 S.E.2d 378); Mock v. Darby, 109 Ga. App. 620 ( 137 S.E.2d 81).
Although it is true that it is not alleged in the petition for declaratory judgment that either the plaintiffs in the pending suits or the defendant Henderson have made any demand upon the company for payment, or that they have notified it that they will look to it for payment of any judgment that may be rendered in them, "yet the plaintiffs are seeking judgments, and until they procure them they are in no position to make demand for payment upon the insurance company. Any demand or notice prior to judgment would be premature. There has been no disclaimer by the plaintiffs of intention to seek payment of their judgments by the insurance company if they get judgments. This presents not a remote or contingent future possibility of dispute but a real and imminent threat facing the insurance company." (Emphasis supplied). St. Paul Fire c. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 216 Ga. 437, 438 ( 117 S.E.2d 459). It is alleged that the Ditmyers "will attempt to enforce any judgment obtained by them against Henderson against the plaintiff under the terms of said omnibus clause," although "an actual controversy exists between plaintiff and the defendants as to coverage under said policy."
2. The question raised is whether, at the time of the accident, Henderson was operating the pickup truck with the owner's permission. Although he may have been in the owner's employment, the issue under the permissive use or omnibus clause is not whether he was acting within the scope of his employment, as it would be if the suit were against the employer under the theory of respondeat superior. Nor is it a question of whether the deviation in going out to the drive-in beer hall was so great or substantial as to break the chain of employment until he should return to a point within its scope. On those questions, however, see Savannah Electric Co. v. Hodges, 6 Ga. App. 470 ( 65 S.E. 322); McIntire v. Hartfelder-Garbutt Co., 9 Ga. App. 327 ( 71 S.E. 492); Garner v. Souders, 20 Ga. App. 242 ( 92 S.E. 965); Dougherty v. Woodward, 21 Ga. App. 427 ( 94 S.E. 636); Atlanta Baseball Co. v. Lawrence, 38 Ga. App. 497 ( 144 S.E. 351); Powell v. Cortez, 44 Ga. App. 205 ( 160 S.E. 698); Selman v. Wallace, 45 Ga. App. 688 ( 165 S.E. 851); Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Brown, 46 Ga. App. 451 ( 167 S.E. 776); Dawson Chevrolet Co. v. Ford, 47 Ga. App. 312 ( 170 S.E. 306); Reddy-Waldhauer-Maffet Co. v. Spivey, 53 Ga. App. 117 ( 185 S.E. 147); Royal Undertaking Co. v. Duffin, 57 Ga. App. 760 ( 196 S.E. 208); Western Cas. c. Co. v. Strozier, 67 Ga. App. 41 ( 19 S.E.2d 433); Nicholas v. Callaway, 72 Ga. App. 41 ( 32 S.E.2d 836); Fambro v. Sparks, 86 Ga. App. 726 ( 72 S.E.2d 473); Cooley v. Tate, 87 Ga. App. 1 ( 73 S.E.2d 72); Windsor v. Chanticleer Co., 89 Ga. App. 116 ( 78 S.E.2d 871); Fulton Bag c. Mills v. Eudaly, 95 Ga. App. 644 ( 98 S.E.2d 235); Brennan v. National NuGrape Co., 106 Ga. App. 709 ( 128 S.E.2d 81); Sparks v. Buffalo Cab Co., 113 Ga. App. 528 ( 148 S.E.2d 919); Brawner v. Martin Jones Produce Co., 116 Ga. App. 324 ( 157 S.E.2d 514); Fielder v. Davidson, 139 Ga. 509 ( 77 S.E. 618); Greeson v. Bailey, 167 Ga. 638, 640 ( 146 S.E. 490); Henderson v. Nolting First Mortgage Corp., 184 Ga. 724, 732 ( 193 S.E. 347, 114 ALR 1022); U.S. F. G. Co. v. Skinner, 188 Ga. 823 ( 5 S.E.2d 9); Ga. Power Co. v. Shipp, 195 Ga. 446 ( 24 S.E.2d 764); Chattanooga Publishing Co. v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880 ( 114 S.E.2d 138).
The test as to re-entry into the scope of employment is well stated in Restatement, Agency 2d, § 237: "A servant who has temporarily departed in space or time from the scope of employment does not re-enter it until he is again reasonably near the authorized space and time limits and is acting with the intention of serving his master's business." In the comment following it is asserted that "He cannot re-enter it, however much he desires it, until he is within the flexible limits of employment."
3. The evidence here is uncontradicted that Henderson had been forbidden to use the truck on a personal mission, and that when he returned it to Miller at his home as he had first been instructed, Miller then gave further instruction that he should deliver the truck directly to Nichols Service Station and leave it there. He was to take it nowhere else.
Obviously, then, when he disobeyed the instruction and took the truck some ten miles off the route to a drive-in beer hall where he remained from about mid-afternoon until he started to leave and collided with the Ditmyers, he was on a personal mission (and he so testified), and was not within the permission given him by Miller to take the truck to Nichols Service Station.
Since he had no permission so to operate the truck, there could be no coverage of Henderson as an additional insured under the permissive use or omnibus clause of Moree's policy.
Appellants urge application of what is known as the liberal version of the "first instance permission" rule, by which permission granted to use a vehicle at the time of delivery to another extends to any and all use made of it by the bailee until it is returned to the owner, thereby affording coverage under the permissive use or omnibus clause of the policy.
In Hodges v. Ocean Acc. c. Corp., 66 Ga. App. 431 ( 18 S.E.2d 28) the "first instance permission" rule was specifically rejected, and this case has been followed in Drake v. General Acc. c. Corp., 88 Ga. App. 408 ( 77 S.E.2d 71) and Maryland Cas. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity c. Co., 91 Ga. App. 635, 638 ( 86 S.E.2d 801). We cannot, therefore, apply that rule unless we should overrule these cases, which we decline to do. Hodges has stood for more than a quarter century, and the rule of stare decisis inveighs against overruling, particularly where, as here, no error appears in the decisions to be overruled. See Shaw v. State, 60 Ga. 246, 253; McArthur Griffin v. DeVaughn, 67 Ga. 645, 647; Georgia R. v. Ivey, 73 Ga. 499, 501; Almand v. Almand George, 95 Ga. 204, 207 ( 22 S.E. 213); Hartley v. Nash, 157 Ga. 402, 405 ( 121 S.E. 295); Davis v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 198 Ga. 550, 563 ( 32 S.E.2d 180, 160 ALR 778), and many others, all emphasizing the importance of the observance of an established rule for giving stability to the law.
The rule urged by appellants is a minority rule, only some eight states having adopted it, and is one which is generally associated with compulsory liability insurance (see Hodges, and 7 Appleman, 1967 Supp.), which we do not have in Georgia. In the majority of the jurisdictions it is held, as here, that while a slight or inconsequential deviation from the permission given will not annual the coverage of the omnibus clause (see Hodges, supra), there is an absence of permission within the meaning of the policy if the vehicle is being driven at a time or a place or for a purpose not authorized by the insured. For a collection and discussion of the cases and the varying rules, see 72 ALR 1398-1409; 106 ALR 1259-1263; 5 ALR2d 594-668.
Insurance is a matter of contract, and unless some statute or public policy is violated it should be measured by the contract terms. In doing that we should assume that in making this contract the parties did so in contemplation of the law as it then stood under the ruling in Hodges, and as was afterward recognized in Drake and Maryland Cas. Co., supra. Courts have no power or authority to change the contract or to enlarge the coverage contracted for, even by a construction of it. Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Kellar, 213 Ga. 453, 458 ( 99 S.E.2d 823). "[A] change of judicial decision after a contract has been made on the faith of an earlier one the other way is a change of the law." Mr. Justice Holmes in Kuhn v. Fairmount Coal Co., 215 U.S. 349, 371 ( 30 SC 140, 54 LE 228). The rights of the parties should be determined "not by adjustment of equities, but by the provisions of the contracts made." Home v. Great American Ins. Co., 109 Ga. App. 24, 30 ( 134 S.E.2d 865).
Nor could there be any implied permission or consent when the use of the truck was at a time and in a manner beyond the scope of employment or of the permission granted, when the departure therefrom was complete. Western Cas. c. Co. v. Strozier, 67 Ga. App. 41, supra.
Even in jurisdictions where the first instance permission rule is applied, it is generally held that where the use being made of the vehicle was expressly forbidden, there could be no coverage under the permissive use or omnibus clause. See 7 Appleman, Insurance, § 4370, p. 329, n. 76. The uncontradicted evidence here discloses that Henderson, as well as all other employees who used the truck, were forbidden to make personal use of it, and that is precisely what he was doing at the time of the accident. The undisputed evidence requires a finding that Henderson had left the ambit of the permission granted or the direction given and at the time of the collision had not returned to or re-entered its sphere. The deviation was neither slight nor inconsequential; it was complete — even in defiance of the forbidden. Consequently, even if we should overrule Hodges and the cases following it and declare the first instance permission rule as the law of this State, it would be of no benefit to the appellants.
Moreover, if the rule urged upon us were adopted we are apprehensive that it might disturb much of the settled law in the areas of master and servant, principal and agent, bailments, torts, trover, criminal law and others. Unauthorized use is a conversion, and conversion is inconsistent with permissive use.
If, as is urged, Henderson was known to the owner to be an habitual user of intoxicants to excess, and it should have been anticipated that he would take the pickup truck on an unauthorized personal mission for engaging in a drinking bout, as he did, plaintiffs are not left without remedy by following the rule of Hodges. Certainly they may proceed with their suits against Henderson. And it may well be that they can proceed against the owner under the long recognized theory of negligent entrustment. See, for example, NuGrape Bottling Co. v. Knott, 47 Ga. App. 539 ( 171 S.E. 151); Crisp v. Wright, 56 Ga. App. 338 ( 192 S.E. 390); Burks v. Green, 85 Ga. App. 327 ( 69 S.E.2d 686); Windsor v. Chanticleer Co., 89 Ga. App. 116, supra; Medlock v. Barfield, 90 Ga. App. 759 ( 84 S.E.2d 113); Healan v. Powell, 91 Ga. App. 787 ( 87 S.E.2d 332); Mason v. Powell, 92 Ga. App. 496 ( 88 S.E.2d 734); Jones v. Dixie Drive It Yourself System, 97 Ga. App. 669 ( 104 S.E.2d 497); Hines v. Bell, 104 Ga. App. 76 ( 120 S.E.2d 892); McKinney v. Burke, 108 Ga. App. 501 ( 133 S.E.2d 383). But see Saunders v. Vikers, 116 Ga. App. 733 (5, 6, 7) ( 158 S.E.2d 324).
Since the owner was not a party to the suits brought by the Ditmyers that issue is not and cannot be involved and they do not proceed upon that theory against Henderson. The negligent entrustment theory applies only in an action against an owner or one who has negligently placed the vehicle in the hands of an incompetent driver. It is a means invented for attaching vicarious liability for the negligence of the incompetent driver when there may be no other way of reaching the entrustor. It has no place in and can serve no purpose in an action brought against the driver alone. Consequently, any determination as to whether there may have been a negligent entrustment must await another day in an appropriately brought suit, between the proper parties.
Judgment affirmed. Bell, P. J., and Whitman, J., concur. Felton, C. J., Jordan, P. J., Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur as to Divisions 1 and 2, and concur specially as to Division 3. Pannell and Deen, JJ., dissent as to Division 1, concur as to Divisions 2 and 3. Felton, C. J., dissents from the judgment.