id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-2480	Frandsen, G. Kent	Insurance	1982	22	.pdf	application/pdf	10211	499	60	Appellants argued that the court erred in direct- ing a verdict because there was sufficient evidence in the record to create an issue of fact for the jury concerning Willetta's apparent authority to lend her mother's car.^® Again, the majority rejected these contentions and pointed out that the Indiana statute does not require insurance policies to cover the liability of permissive users.^^ ''Id. at 1005-07. Applying the test for im- plied authorization as set forth in Home Mutual Insurance Co. v. Automobile Underwriters, Inc.,^^ the majority concluded that Kathy was not acting with implied authorization because her use of the car was not within the scope of the original permission — to use the car for commuting to and from Willetta's place of employment.^^ The appellants additionally argued that Indiana public policy re- quires a liberal interpretation of omnibus clauses.^^	cache/inlawrev-2480.pdf	txt/inlawrev-2480.txt