To determine whether an individual is an employee as provided in an insurance contract exclusion, the court examines several factors, such as the alleged employer's control over the individual, the employer's ability to discharge the individual, and whether the employer furnished materials, tools, or equipment. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 128 Ill. App.3d 696, 701, 470 N.E.2d 1130 (1984). Additionally, the court considers the regularity of work and if the employer compensated the individual for work performed.

Additionally, there are cases from other jurisdictions in which the courts have held that the parent of an emancipated adult child driving a non-owned vehicle was not liable for the child's alleged negligent acts. See Tollefson v. Am. FamilyIns. Co., 302 Minn. 1, 226 N.W.2d 280, 284-85 (1974) (recognizing that insurance policy did not provide coverage for accident of emancipated child, who did not reside in insured's household and was driving a non-owned vehicle); see alsoSafeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Parks, 122 Cal.App.4th 779, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 17, 24-28 (2004) (holding insurer had no duty to defend minor child where she was driving a non-owned vehicle and was not a member of insured's household); Crawley v.State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 90 Hawai'i 478, 979 P.2d 74, 80-83 (1999) (finding insurer owed no duty to defend insured for negligent actions of minor child, who was not a resident relative, while driving a non-owned vehicle); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. State Farm Auto. Ins.Co., 128 Ill.App.3d 696, 83 Ill.Dec. 710, 470 N.E.2d 1130, 1134 (1984) (concluding insurer of minor's parents owed no duty to defend them for suits arising out of minor child's acts while driving a non-owned vehicle given child did not live with the insureds); Nichols v. Atnip, 844 S.W.2d 655, 660-63 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1992) (affirming summary judgment for parents of emancipated child, finding parents did not negligently entrust automobile to child and parents owed no duty to accident victims to supervise child's driving); Coop. Fire Ins. Ass'n of Vermont v. Am. Prot.Ins. Co., 157 Vt. 380, 385, 599 A.2d 360 (1991) (holding insurer was not required to defend insured against negligent entrustment and supervision causes of action arising from minor child's use of non-covered automobile); cf. Nat'l UnionFire Ins. v. Carricato, 439 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Ky. 1969) (finding emancipated child was covered under parents' insurance policy where she lived in parents' home and was the beneficial owner of the vehicle); see generally 8A Lee R. Russ, Couch on Insurance 3d §§ 118

A payment under one coverage does not waive the right to contest liability under a separate coverage. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 128 Ill. App.3d 696, 699 (1984). Defendant also contends that the "premium rule" mandates that she should be allowed a double recovery.