## Facts

- BNSF Railway assigned James Campbell, a foreman on a traveling work crew, a BNSF-owned vehicle for work-related travel.
- Campbell’s supervisor expressly permitted him to use the vehicle to commute between his Tennessee home and an out-of-town job site in Springfield, Missouri.
- BNSF had no express policy specifying permissible uses of company vehicles while employees were traveling to, staying near, and working at out-of-town job sites.
- While stationed out of town, Campbell routinely used the vehicle for meals, travel to job sites, and necessary errands; BNSF was aware of and tolerated similar use by other employees.
- BNSF prohibited operating a company vehicle while using alcohol or drugs, but Campbell became intoxicated and rear-ended Ricky Lee Griffitts’s vehicle in Springfield.
- Griffitts obtained a $1.475 million negligence judgment against Campbell; after it remained unpaid for 30 days, Griffitts filed an equitable garnishment action against BNSF and its insurer, Old Republic, to collect under BNSF’s liability policy.
- The dispute centered on whether Campbell was a permissive user covered as an insured under the policy’s omnibus clause at the time of the collision.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee’s violation of employer rules governing vehicle operation (driving while intoxicated) negates the employer’s “permission” under an automobile policy’s omnibus clause, thereby eliminating coverage for the employee as a permissive user.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri held the trial court erroneously declared the law by treating the rules violation as sufficient, by itself, to defeat permissive-use coverage.
- The Court concluded Campbell had permission to use the company vehicle at the time of the accident for omnibus-clause purposes, notwithstanding his intoxication.
- The Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment denying coverage and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Permission for omnibus-clause coverage is determined by the named insured’s grant of permission and the parties’ course of conduct, including tolerated practices in the work setting.
- An employee’s violation of internal employer rules about how a vehicle must be operated does not automatically extinguish previously granted permission to use the vehicle for coverage purposes.
- Coverage under an omnibus clause is not conditioned on compliance with employer policies unless the insurance policy expressly makes such compliance a coverage limitation or permission is clearly withdrawn.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employee who had broad, ongoing permission to use an employer vehicle at an out-of-town assignment remained a permissive user under the employer’s automobile policy even when the employee drove intoxicated in violation of workplace rules, and it vacated the judgment denying coverage and remanded.


Griffitts v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 550 S.W.3d 474 (Mo. 2018)