Eberhardt, Judge.
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 [516]*516of 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 cast 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 SE2d 50). Accord: Mensinger v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 202 Ga. 258 (42 SE2d 628); Georgia Cas. &c. Co. v. Turner, 86 Ga. App. 418 (71 SE2d 773); Parks v. Jones, 88 Ga. App. 188 (76 SE2d 449); Darling v. Jones, 88 Ga. App. 812 (78 SE2d 94); Griffin v. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 93 Ga. App. 801 (92 SE2d 871); Buffington v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 104 Ga. App. 139 (121 SE2d 270); Dearhart v. Reserve Ins. Co., 108 Ga. App. 347 (132 SE2d 809), reversed on other grounds in 219 Ga. 699 (135 SE2d 378); Mock v. Darby, 109 Ga. App. 620 (137 SE2d 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 SE2d 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 [517]*517between plaintiff and the defendants as to coverage under said policy.”
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.1 On those questions, however, see Savannah Electric Co. v. Hodges, 6 Ga. App. 470 (65 SE 322); Mclntire v. Hartfelder-Garbutt Co., 9 Ga. App. 327 (71 SE 492); Garner v. Bonders, 20 Ga. App. 242 (92 SE 965); Dougherty v. Woodward, 21 Ga. App. 427 (94 SE 636); Atlanta Baseball Co. v. Lawrence, 38 Ga. App. 497 (144 SE 351); Powell v. Cortez, 44 Ga. App. 205 (160 SE 698); Selman v. Wallace, 45 Ga. App. 688 (165 SE 851); Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Brown, 46 Ga. App. 451 (167 SE 776); Dawson Chevrolet Co. v. Ford, 47 Ga. App. 312 (170 SE 306); Reddy-Waldhauer-Maffet Co. v. Spivey, 53 Ga. App. 117 (185 SE 147); Boyal Undertaking Co. v. Duffin, 57 Ga. App. 760 (196 SE 208); Western Cas. &c. Co. v. Strozier, 67 Ga. App. 41 (19 SE2d 433); Nicholas v. Callaway, 72 Ga. App. 41 (32 SE2d 836); Fambro v. Sparks, 86 Ga. App. 726 (72 SE2d 473); Cooley v. Tate, 87 Ga. App. 1 (73 SE2d 72); Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 89 Ga. App. 116 (78 SE2d 871); Fulton Bag &c. Mills v. Eudaly, 95 Ga. App. 644 (98 SE2d 235); Brennan v. National NuGrape Co., 106 Ga. App. 709 (128 SE2d 81); Sparks v. Buffalo Cab Co., [518]*518113 Ga. App. 528 (148 SE2d 919); Brawner v. Martin & Jones Produce Co,, 116 Ga. App. 324 (157 SE2d 514); Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509 (77 SE 618); Greeson v. Bailey, 167 Ga. 638, 640 (146 SE 490); Henderson v. Nolting First Mortgage Corp., 184 Ga. 724, 732 (193 SE 347, 114 ALE, 1022); U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Skinner, 188 Ga. 823 (5 SE2d 9); Ga. Power Co. v. Shipp, 195 Ga. 446 (24 SE2d 764); Chattanooga Publishing Co. v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880 (114SE2d 138).
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 SE2d 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 SE2d 71) and Maryland Cas. Co. v. U. S. Fidelity &c. Co., 91 Ga. App. 635, 638 (86 SE2d 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 [519]*519decisions 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 SE 213); Hartley v. Nash, 157 Ga. 402, 405 (121 SE 295); Davis v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 198 Ga. 550, 563 (32 SE2d -180, 160 ALR 778), and many others, all emphasizing the importance oí the observance oí an established rule ior giving stability to the law.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eberhardt, Judge.
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 [516]*516of 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 cast 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 SE2d 50). Accord: Mensinger v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 202 Ga. 258 (42 SE2d 628); Georgia Cas. &c. Co. v. Turner, 86 Ga. App. 418 (71 SE2d 773); Parks v. Jones, 88 Ga. App. 188 (76 SE2d 449); Darling v. Jones, 88 Ga. App. 812 (78 SE2d 94); Griffin v. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 93 Ga. App. 801 (92 SE2d 871); Buffington v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 104 Ga. App. 139 (121 SE2d 270); Dearhart v. Reserve Ins. Co., 108 Ga. App. 347 (132 SE2d 809), reversed on other grounds in 219 Ga. 699 (135 SE2d 378); Mock v. Darby, 109 Ga. App. 620 (137 SE2d 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 SE2d 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 [517]*517between plaintiff and the defendants as to coverage under said policy.”
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.1 On those questions, however, see Savannah Electric Co. v. Hodges, 6 Ga. App. 470 (65 SE 322); Mclntire v. Hartfelder-Garbutt Co., 9 Ga. App. 327 (71 SE 492); Garner v. Bonders, 20 Ga. App. 242 (92 SE 965); Dougherty v. Woodward, 21 Ga. App. 427 (94 SE 636); Atlanta Baseball Co. v. Lawrence, 38 Ga. App. 497 (144 SE 351); Powell v. Cortez, 44 Ga. App. 205 (160 SE 698); Selman v. Wallace, 45 Ga. App. 688 (165 SE 851); Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Brown, 46 Ga. App. 451 (167 SE 776); Dawson Chevrolet Co. v. Ford, 47 Ga. App. 312 (170 SE 306); Reddy-Waldhauer-Maffet Co. v. Spivey, 53 Ga. App. 117 (185 SE 147); Boyal Undertaking Co. v. Duffin, 57 Ga. App. 760 (196 SE 208); Western Cas. &c. Co. v. Strozier, 67 Ga. App. 41 (19 SE2d 433); Nicholas v. Callaway, 72 Ga. App. 41 (32 SE2d 836); Fambro v. Sparks, 86 Ga. App. 726 (72 SE2d 473); Cooley v. Tate, 87 Ga. App. 1 (73 SE2d 72); Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 89 Ga. App. 116 (78 SE2d 871); Fulton Bag &c. Mills v. Eudaly, 95 Ga. App. 644 (98 SE2d 235); Brennan v. National NuGrape Co., 106 Ga. App. 709 (128 SE2d 81); Sparks v. Buffalo Cab Co., [518]*518113 Ga. App. 528 (148 SE2d 919); Brawner v. Martin & Jones Produce Co,, 116 Ga. App. 324 (157 SE2d 514); Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509 (77 SE 618); Greeson v. Bailey, 167 Ga. 638, 640 (146 SE 490); Henderson v. Nolting First Mortgage Corp., 184 Ga. 724, 732 (193 SE 347, 114 ALE, 1022); U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Skinner, 188 Ga. 823 (5 SE2d 9); Ga. Power Co. v. Shipp, 195 Ga. 446 (24 SE2d 764); Chattanooga Publishing Co. v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880 (114SE2d 138).
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 SE2d 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 SE2d 71) and Maryland Cas. Co. v. U. S. Fidelity &c. Co., 91 Ga. App. 635, 638 (86 SE2d 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 [519]*519decisions 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 SE 213); Hartley v. Nash, 157 Ga. 402, 405 (121 SE 295); Davis v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 198 Ga. 550, 563 (32 SE2d -180, 160 ALR 778), and many others, all emphasizing the importance oí the observance oí an established rule ior 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 annul 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 SE2d 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 SE2d 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 [520]*520scope 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 SE 151); Crisp v. Wright, 56 Ga. App. 338 (192 SE 390); Burks v. Green, 85 Ga. App. 327 (69 SE2d 686); Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 89 Ga. App. 116, supra; Medlock v. Barfield, 90 Ga. App. 759 (84 SE2d 113); Healan v. Powell, 91 Ga. App. 787 (87 SE2d 332); Mason v. Powell, 92 Ga. App. [521]*521496 (88 SE2d 734); Jones v. Dixie Drive It Yourself System., 97 Ga. App. 669 (104 SE2d 497); Hines v. Bell, 104 Ga. App. 76 (120 SE2d 892); McKinney v. Burke, 108 Ga. App. 501 (133 SE2d 383). But see Saunders v. Vikers, 116 Ga. App. 733 (5, 6,7) (158 SE2d 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 8. Pannell and Deen, JJ., dissent as to Division 1, concur as to Divisions 2 and 8. Felton, C. J., dissents from the judgment.
Felton, Chief Judge, Jordan, Presiding Judge, Hall and Quillian, Judges, are of the opinion that the cases of Hodges V. Ocean Acc. &c. 'Corp., 66 Ga. App. 431 (18 SE2d 28); Drake v. General Acc. Acc. Corp., 88 Ga. App. 408 (77 SE2d 71) and Maryland Cas. Co. v. U. S. Fidel. &c. Co., 91 Ga. App. 635, 638 (86 SE2d 801), should be overruled and this court should adopt the first instance permission rule as to the omnibus clause in liability insurance policies. We approve of the following editorial comment on the subject from 5 ALR2d 629-630: “The rationale of this rule apparently is that even an ordinary automobile liability insurance contract is as much for the benefit of members of the public as for the benefit of the named or additional insured and that therefore upon an injury occurring, it would be undesirable to permit litigation as to the use made of the automobile, the scope of permission given, the purposes of the bailment, and the like. . .
[522]*522“Such construction of the policy is also in accord with thé purpose of the various statutes adopted by several states requiring owners of automobiles to carry indemnity or liability insurance. These statutes are enacted to protect the public using the streets and highways, as a matter of public policy. The intent of the legislature is to protect those injured by automobiles, no matter who may be driving the car or where it is driven, provided the owner has voluntarily entrusted possession of the car to the driver for some purpose, and regardless of whether the person in possession of the car observes or breaks the contract of bailment.
“Another reason advanced in support of the liberal rule is that the contract of insurance is written by the insurer, which if it wanted to could have excluded by express language liability in cases where the employee deviated from the permitted use. As stated in Rikowski v. Fidelity &c. Co. (1937) 117 NJL 407, 189 A 102 (affg. (1936) 116 NJL 503, 185 A 473): Tt is within the field of general knowledge that the usual indemnity policy is, except where a statute intervenes, framed by the company whose product it is and that the person to whom a policy is issued accepts it in the form offered and pays for it that which is asked, else he does not get it. The named assured may accept the contract or he may reject it. But he does not write it. So the defendant company chose the phraseology in which its obligation is set forth. It could, by its contract, have narrowed its obligation, but one would expect that if, in the light of the public policy and the general public attitude ... it purposed so to do, it would have phrased its contract in words more restricted than those now before us.’”
Lacking one essential vote on this court to overrule the above cases we must follow them in this case.