friend. Id. at 482. The court concluded that there were no facts on the record to “support a finding of a connection between [the named insured and the ultimate driver of the car].” Id. at 485. The named insured was not found to have known or even spoken with the driver. Id. Further the court found that there was no indication to the insured that her nephew would loan the car to someone else or any evidence that he had ever loaned the car to another on previous occasions when he had used it. Id. Due to these factual findings, the court held that the evidence “was not enough to permit a finding of any permission by [the insured] encompassing [the driver’s] use of her automobile.” Id. See also Motorists Mutual Insurance Cos. v. Great Lakes Laboratories, Inc. 687 F.Supp. 198 (W.D.Pa.1988) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff relies on Cummings, a case similar
holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that the driver of a ear owned by his wife who had given him permission to use it had a legitimate expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car holding that driver did not have named insureds implied permission to use car where father gave the son permission to use car and the son lent the ear to someone else holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver