Upton v. Tatro

The principal question on this appeal is the same as that raised in the case of Nordahl v. Peterson, ante, p. 538, 229 N. W. 2d 682. Is consent by the titleholder and named insured to operate a motor vehicle implied where such consent is given by one who, for all practical purposes, is the owner of the vehicle and has such permission from the named insured? The question involves the interpretation of the omnibus coverage clause, sec. 204.30 (3), Stats. 1 We hold that under the facts in this case such consent must be implied as a matter of law.

The second question is whether or not there is…