## Facts

- Hartford issued an automobile liability policy to Kathryn Zylka covering her car and containing an omnibus clause extending coverage to any person using the car with the named insured’s permission.
- Zylka gave her son, Michael, broad, continuing permission to use the car during his summer vacation.
- Zylka repeatedly instructed Michael not to allow anyone else to drive the car.
- On July 7, 1964, Michael used the car for a social visit and allowed Douglas Odolecki to borrow it to pick up Odolecki’s girlfriend from a hospital.
- While Odolecki was driving, the car was involved in a collision, leading to personal-injury suits against Odolecki.
- Hartford denied coverage, asserting Odolecki was not an insured because he lacked permission from the named insured as required by the omnibus clause.
- Odolecki filed a declaratory judgment action; after a bench trial, the trial court found no coverage because Zylka never gave Odolecki permission and had expressly barred Michael from letting others drive.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey certified the appeal on its own motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a second permittee is an additional insured under an automobile policy’s omnibus clause when the named insured gave the first permittee general permission to use the car but expressly prohibited letting others drive.
2. Whether “permission” in an omnibus clause turns on the identity of the driver or on whether the vehicle’s actual use at the time of the accident remained within the scope of the initial permission.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed.
- The court held Odolecki was covered as an additional insured under the omnibus clause.
- The court concluded the named insured’s express non-delegation instruction did not defeat coverage where the first permittee had general permission and the actual use was within the permitted scope.

## Legal Principles

- Omnibus clauses in automobile liability policies are construed broadly to protect the public and effectuate the compensatory purpose of liability insurance.
- When a named insured grants a first permittee general, continuing permission to use the vehicle, a second permittee’s operation may be deemed “with permission” under the omnibus clause if the vehicle’s actual use is within the scope of the initial permission.
- An express restriction against delegation of driving authority is treated as a limitation on who may drive, not necessarily a limitation on the kind of use; coverage is not defeated when the permitted use remains substantially the same.
- In assessing permission under an omnibus clause, courts may focus on whether the vehicle’s use at the time of the accident was reasonably contemplated by the initial grant of permission, consistent with public policy favoring coverage.

## Conclusion

The court held that a second permittee was an insured under the policy’s omnibus clause despite an express instruction not to let others drive, because the first permittee had general permission and the vehicle’s actual use at the time of the accident remained within the authorized scope.


Odolecki v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 55 N.J. 542, 264 A.2d 38 (N.J. 1970)