Volume 275 — Maryland Reports

INSURANCE — <italic>Automobile Liability Insurance — Persons Insured —</italic><italic>Policy Issued To Interstate Motor Carrier Extends Coverage To</italic><italic>Persons Using Or Driving Automobile With Express Or Implied</italic><italic>Permission Of Carrier — Coverage Also Extends To Owner Of Vehicle</italic><italic>Who Is Vicariously Liable For Acts Or Omissions Of Carrier Or Its</italic><italic>Permittees</italic>. Where "driveaway" carrier employed F to drive automobile owned by another to Florida, and accident occurred <italic>en</italic><italic>route</italic> in Maryland while automobile was driven by S (a friend of F, who accompanied F on trip), the Court <italic>held</italic> that both F and S were covered by the carrier's automobile liability insurance. The insurance contract named as an insured: "any other person while using an owned automobile or a hired automobile with the permission of the Named Insured [the carrier], provided his actual operation or (if he is not operating) his other actual use thereof is within the scope of such permission." As to F, the Court reasoned that as the "custodian" of the automobile, he was using it at the time of the accident, although he actually was not driving it at the time. As to S, the Court reasoned that there was implied permission from the carrier to F to subdelegate the driving to S, under the particular facts of the case. The Court also <italic>held</italic> that the actual owner (the shipper) was covered by the carrier's policy under coverage insuring: "any other person . . . but only with respect to his . . . liability because of acts or omissions of an Insured. . . ." pp. 469-473, 476 INSURANCE — <italic>Construction Of Policy — Must Be Construed As A</italic><italic>Whole — Specific Provision Controls Over General</italic>. Where owner of shipped automobile was covered as insured by specific provision of carrier's automobile liability policy, the Court <italic>held</italic> that a general provision of said policy, denying coverage to owner of non-owned automobile did not apply in the instant case. pp. 469-473, 476 INSURANCE — <italic>Automobile Liability Insurance — Persons Insured —</italic><italic>Owner's Policy Does Not Afford Coverage To Persons Driving Or</italic><italic>Using Automobile Outside Scope Of Owner's Permission</italic>. Where owner of automobile granted interstate motor carrier authority to subdelegate driving his automobile to authorized driver, and authorized driver permitted a friend to drive automobile in contravention of I.C.C. regulations, the Court <italic>held</italic> that owner's automobile liability policy afforded no coverage to carrier, its authorized driver or his friend when accident occurred while friend was driving the owner's automobile. pp. 473-476<page_number>Page 461</page_number> INSURANCE — <italic>Automobile Liability Insurance — Accident While</italic><italic>Insured Automobile Driven By "Driveaway" Carrier — Double</italic><italic>Coverage — Priorities Between Insurers — Integration of I.C.C.</italic><italic>Regulations Into Insurance Contract — Primary Responsibility Of</italic><italic>Carrier's Insurer Restricted To Limits Specified In I.C.C.</italic><italic>Endorsement</italic>. Where owner of automobile was covered under liability insurance of "driveaway" carrier and also under his own liability policy, the Court <italic>held</italic> that with respect to the owner, the endorsement of carrier's policy, in accordance with I.C.C. regulations, made that policy primary insurance to the limits specified in the I.C.C. endorsement; that the owner's policy then affords the owner coverage to the full extend of its limits; and thereafter, the carrier's insurer re-enters as an excess carrier to the balance of its policy limits. pp. 477-480 J.A.A.