Buy cheap gay porn.

22.2003 Owner’s liability policy.

Cite as [A.S.C.A. § 22.2003]

An owner’s policy of liability insurance:

(1) shall designate by explicit description or appropriate reference all vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby to be granted;

(2) shall insure the person named therein and any other person who uses the vehicle or vehicles with the express or implied permission of the named insured against loss from liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the vehicle or vehicles, subject to limits exclusive of interest and costs, with respect to each such vehicle, as follows:

(A) $10,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident;

(B) subject to said limit for one person, $20,000 for bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any one accident;

(C) $5,000 for injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident;

(3) shall, if the vehicle is being used in the transportation of passengers for hire, including taxicabs, insure the driver and all fare-paying passengers therein against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the vehicle or vehicles, subject to limits exclusive of interest and costs, with respect to each vehicle as follows:

(A) $10,000 for bodily injury to or death of 1 person;

(B) $50,000 for bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any one accident;

(C) $10,000 for injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.

History: 1972, PL 12-65 § 1; amd 1979, PL 16-3 § 3.

Amendments: 1979 Paragraph (3) (A): lowered dollar amount from $25,000 to $10,000.

Case Notes:

One who has been granted permission to use automobile has no right to recover from owner’s insurer under policy complying with this section. Toilolo v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., ASR (1976).

Section is part of statutory scheme intended to ensure recovery in tort for victims injured by drivers who could not afford to pay damages. Amount to be recovered against defendants not to exceed amount that would have been covered by insurance had defendant not breached its statutory duty to provide insurance. Foma’i v. Samana, 4 A.S.R.2d 102 (1987).

Where underage driver (of parent’s vehicle) snuck keys, no express or implied permission of named insured is present. Minute v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., ASR (1976).

Defendant insurer is liable under compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance statute for intentional unauthorized battery by insured’s employee, despite policy language to contrary. RCAS 25.2003(b)(3.) Tung v. Ah Sam, 4 ASR 764 (1971).

Statute requiring liability insurance for taxis is for protection of public and should be liberally construed. RCAS 25.20. Tung v. Ah Sam, 4 ASR 764 (1971).

Rental company that allowed its automobile to be operated on the highway without insurance required by law was liable for damages suffered by person injured by negligent driver of company’s automobile, up to the amount that would have been covered by insurance if the rental company had not breached its statutory duty to provide insurance. A.S.C.A. §§ 22.1001, 22.2002-03. Foma’i v. Samana, 4 A.S.R.2d 102 (1987).

When a vehicle’s owner did not insure his car as required by law and the driver as using the care with his permission, the owner is liable to compensate the plaintiff for any losses up to the $10,000 insurance amount he had a duty to provide. A.S.C.A. § 22.2003. Vaiti v. So’oso’o, 19 A.S.R.2d 71 (1991).

Statute requiring the owner of a vehicle to purchase and maintain liability insurance for losses inflicted by any person using his vehicle, and related statutes forbidding the operation of uninsured vehicles on the public highway and giving an insured person the right to bring direct action against the insurer, were intended to ensure recovery in tort for victims injured by drivers who could not afford to pay damages. A.S.C.A. §§ 22.1001, 22.2002-03. Foma’i v. Samana, 4 A.S.R.2d 102 (1987).

Owner’s implied permission to use his vehicle, which extends compulsory liability insurance coverage to a non-owner driver, may be inferred from a course of conduct or relationship between the vehicle owner and driver in which there is mutual acquiescence or lack of objection under circumstances signifying consent. A.S.C.A. § 22.2003(2). Maulupe v. American International Underwriters, 12 A.S.R.2d 1 (1989).

Evidence must show owner’s permission, express or implied, in order for non-owner driver to be covered by owner’s compulsory vehicle liability insurance policy. A.S.C.A. § 22.2003(2). Maulupe v. American International Underwriters, 12 A.S.R.2d 1 (1989).

Compulsory Insurance Act limits recovery to victims who prove actionable fault on the part of a named insured or persons driving the insured vehicle with his express or implied permission. A.S.C.A. § 22.2003(2). Mauga v. National Pacific Insurance, 15 A.S.R.2d 35 (1990).

Compulsory vehicle insurance covers the named insured, as well as any other person who uses the insured’s vehicle with his express or implied permission. A.S.C.A. § 22.2003(2). Leilua v. Ali’itaeao, 23 A.S.R.2d 97 (1993).

A vehicle owner cannot restrict his consent to a particular manner of driving in order to escape liability under automobile consent statutes. A.S.C.A. § 22.2003. Sataua v. Himphill, 5 A.S.R.2d 61 (1987).

A vehicle owner may limit the time, place, and purpose of the use of his vehicle to which he consents and thereby assume liability only for negligence that occurs within the scope of his consent. A.S.C.A. § 22.2003. Sataua v. Himphill, 5 A.S.R.2d 61 (1987).