In Murphy v. Urso, 88 Ill. 2d 444, 430 N.E.2d 1079, 58 Ill. Dec. 828 (1981), a bus driver took a van after school hours for personal use and was involved in an accident that injured his passenger. The passenger sued the driver of the van and the school that employed him. The driver did not respond to the complaint, so a default judgment was entered against him. The plaintiff filed a garnishment suit seeking payment from the owner's insurance company. The insurer attempted to deny coverage of the driver, but the plaintiff argued that it was estopped from denying coverage because it had failed to defend the driver in the underlying suit. Our supreme court ruled that the insurance company had conflicts of interest preventing it from defending under a reservation of rights where it controlled both defenses for the school and the driver. Murphy, 88 Ill. 2d at 453. "To best defend the preschool, it would try to show that the driver did not have permission to use the bus at the time of the accident.This would sever any connection between the preschool and the driver, place all the liability on the dirver, and exonerate the school. But to best serve the driver, Travelers had to try to show that he did have permission to use the bus. This would spread the liability to the schools." Murphy, 88 Ill. 2d at 453. The interests of the schools and the driver were "diametrically opposed, creating an ethical conflict for Travelers, which was charged with providing a full and vigorous defense to each." Murphy, 88 Ill. 2d at 453. "In order to defend either the schools or the driver, Travelers had to resolve the conflict and pick a strategy of defense. How could it do so for one without harming the other?" Murphy, 88 Ill. 2d at 453.