Justin was not pleased when two men arrived to repossess his Mustang. First, he told them of his objections and then he fired at them with his shotgun. Next, he jumped into the van supplied to him by his employer and pursued them as they sped away. A collision occurred and the shotgun accidentally discharged killing one man and injuring the other. When plaintiffs sued Justin's employer because the accident occurred while Justin was operating its van, the carrier refused coverage.

Click here to see how the courts ruled.

An important company benefit is the employer-supplied vehicle. Unfortunately, if it is the only vehicle used by a family a significant coverage gap can be created. This gap can be filled in two ways. One requires the employee attempting to purchase non-owned only coverage from a personal lines carrier. The other is for the employer to purchase CA 99 10-Drive Other Car-Broadened Coverage for Named Individuals.

Click here to read the PF&M analysis of the ISO CA 99 10-Drive Other Car Coverage-Broadened Coverage for Named Individuals that includes a discussion on the significant gaps the employee could face without.

Many customers are not aware of the differences between personal and commercial lines coverage and may be totally unaware of this gap; the time of a serious injury accident is not the time you want to bring it up to them. The following e-marketing articles could be used to bring it to their attention so that they could call you!

Click here to review two e-marketing articles

Have you talked with your client about personal use of supplied vehicles? It could be a very important discussion that could reveal not only the Drive-Other-Car Coverage but also permissive auto issues.

If you are unsure about the potential gap existing, consider using the following Business Building Letter to bring the issue to the forefront.