(September, 2018)
PART
A - LIABILITY COVERAGE
Insuring Agreement
A. The PAP covers both
"bodily injury" and "property damage" for which a covered
person is legally obligated to pay because of an auto accident. The agreement
also obligates an insurer to defend a claim or lawsuit. However, once the
policy's limit of liability has been exhausted, the insurer's obligation to
continue paying to legally defend an insured ends.
|
Example: Phil Drivewrong
is being sued for hitting a car at an intersection after running a red light.
Phil’s insurer defends his suit and dutifully pays lawyer fees and court
costs. Phil’s policy has a combined single liability limit of $100,000. The
claimant is suing for $300,000 in damages and her claim is bolstered by a
very credible group of expensive, expert witnesses. After a careful
evaluation of the case, Phil’s insurer determines that it would take an equal
number of expensive experts to refute the amount of damages being claimed.
The insurer also believes that fighting expert with expert could not
guarantee a victory. The insurer decides that, rather than pay astronomical
defense costs, it would be in their best interest to pay out the full policy
limits. The claimant accepts their payment but continues the suit for the
additional damages. The cost of continuing any defense is now Phil’s
responsibility.
|
The PAP gives the insurer
discretion on defending and/or settling a given claim. The PAP contains the
potential of an unlimited defense obligation since it does not contain a
specific monetary limit on the amount that may be paid to defend a covered
person. However, the policy does allow a company to have some control over
their financial duty to protect a covered person in a given claim. Of course, a
natural control against an insurer’s unlimited obligation to defend an insured
is that a company does not have to provide a defense under ALL situations. An
insurer doesn’t have to defend any "bodily injury" or "property
damage" loss that isn't covered by the policy.
|
|
Example: Billie Roadmaster is quite an
aggressive driver and he’s usually in a big hurry. One morning he lost his
“patience.” He was late for work and was enraged at a driver who slowed him
down by traveling the posted limit. When he got a chance, Billie sped by the
“slow” driver, made a U-turn and then rammed his antagonist head-on. Billie’s
mood wasn’t helped when, later, his insurer tells him that his PAP will not
pay for any claim NOR defend him in court.
|
Note: When prejudgment
interest is awarded against an insured, this amount is part of the insurer’s
obligation to pay, subject to applicable policy limits.
B. Under Part A - Liability
Coverage, an insured includes:
1. The named insured, a
resident spouse and any "family
member,"
Note: This is in regard to
operating, owning, or maintaining either a car or trailer
2. Persons who use
"your covered auto."
|
Example: Yannick Petrie’s ‘12 Toyota
pickup is insured under a PAP. One day, his neighbor, Jeri, asks to use his
truck to pick up some building materials for a wood deck. On the way back
from Goodluk Builder’s Paradise, Jeri rear
ends a car at a stoplight and the building material spills out of the pickup
bed. The spilled materials not only damage the car in back of Jeri, they also
fall onto the road, causing a chain collision. Since Jeri is a permissive
operator of Yannick’s pickup, Yannick’s policy would cover the losses (up to
its limit).
|
The PAP also considers other persons and
organizations to be covered persons in certain circumstances.
3. Other persons or organizations
are eligible for coverage against damage which they cause, but for which a
named insured, a resident spouse or a "family member" is responsible
because of their acts or omissions in providing the vehicle.
4. Other persons or organizations
also are covered for their acts or omissions in providing a vehicle to a named
insured, a resident spouse or a "family member" who causes damages
with that vehicle (including a trailer). The same protection is available with
regard to non-owned auto or trailer. However, this coverage does not apply in
instances where such entities either own or hire the vehicle or trailer.
|
|
Example: A member of your church asks
you to drive some children to a church picnic using a van provided by another
church member. On the way to the park (picnic site), the van hits an oil
slick on the road, slams into a couple of parked cars, and one of the
children suffers a broken leg. This policy provision allows the PAP to defend
both you and the church as defendants in a claim involving the damages caused
by a vehicle that is not owned or hired by either party.
|
Although this analysis does not attempt to
discuss individual state differences, one important issue must be mentioned:
no-fault insurance provisions. There are states with different methods of
handling compensation of persons injured in automobile accidents. Instead of
compensation based on tort liability (where payment of damages is based upon
fault of the driver[s]), some states use various no-fault approaches.
Supplementary Payments
This section advises the insured of several,
additional coverages that are available.
1. One supplemental
coverage will pay for the cost of bail bonds, but this coverage is limited to a
total of $250. However, the bond has to be connected with an accident. A bond
that is due solely to a traffic violation isn't covered.
2. The policy pays for the
costs of premiums on appeal bonds and attachment bonds, but only those involved
in a suit that the insurance company is defending.
3. The PAP also pays
for any interest on judgments that have been entered. However, any payment
obligation ends if the policy's limit of insurance is reached.
4. The PAP pays for loss of
earnings caused by hearings or trial attendance and other reasonable expenses
caused by an insurance company's request.
|
Example: June Unlukki
is asked to appear at a preliminary hearing involving her colliding with a
family in a van while trying to merge onto a crowded interstate. June gets
permission to take an unpaid day off from work to attend and testify at the
trial. The insurer says that they will pay for her loss of a day’s wages.
|
|
Concerning loss of pay,
the latest edition PAP pays a maximum of $250 per day to
reimburse a covered person for lost earnings. This supplemental coverage does
not include loss of other sources of income. In the previous edition of the
PAP, the maximum limit for loss of earnings was $200 per day. One thing remains
the same: there is no other limitation regarding loss of earnings, so the limit
could be paid for one or 100 daily occurrences of lost pay. (09 18
change)
5. Finally, under
Supplementary Payments, the policy will pay any reasonable expenses that are
due to activity requested of an insured by the insurer.
|
Example: Sammi Kollum’s
insurer is defending a lawsuit filed against him for an intersection
collision that occurred while Sammi was coming home from an out-of-state
vacation. Sammi’s insurer has made arrangements for him to travel to a
lawyer’s office in a neighboring state so that he can participate in a
deposition. The insurance company assures Sammi that they will pay for all
expenses including travel, meals, hotels, etc.
|
A very important point is that any
supplemental payment does not reduce the PAP’s other, primary policy limits.
Exclusions
This coverage part's exclusions fall under
category A, having to do with "insureds," and category B, which
concerns vehicle ownership, maintenance and use.
A. There are a number of
situations that fail to qualify for coverage under the PAP, such as the
following:
1. The Personal Auto
Policy doesn't provide liability protection to insureds that deliberately
injure other persons or property. Because this point sometimes causes
confusion, it's important to examine what is meant by intent.
|
|
Example: Jimmy is on the way home from a
really horrible day at the office. As he merges into freeway traffic, another
driver swerves from behind and beats him onto the road. Jimmy is so mad that,
after he merges, he races up to the other car, meaning to ride his bumper.
Unfortunately, Jimmy ends up hitting the other car. In this case, the intent
lies with Jimmy's frame of mind. Yes, he intentionally sped up and overtook
the vehicle, but what he meant to do was to get on the other driver's case,
not to put the other driver's car into a body shop. Certainly, one could
argue that what happened was foreseeable, but in Jimmy's mind, it was still
an accident.
|
If you think the fact that something is
foreseeable should determine intent, how about the following?
|
Example: Pearl thinks that she is
a world class driver and she is very proud of her expert ability to make it
through intersections under “yellow” traffic lights. One
day, Pearl is headed towards a very busy intersection where the
light facing her has just turned yellow. Pearl knows that the
street is slick because the area she’s traveling in just had a brief
downpour. Pearl ignores this fact as she picks up speed. She then
decides that she just won’t be able to beat the red light. Pearl quickly
hits her brakes and, as anyone should expect since the street is wet, the
tires can’t grip anything. Pearl slides into the intersection and also into
two other cars. The accident under these circumstances was quite foreseeable,
but this is easily a covered loss under the PAP.
|
Related Court Case: Unlicensed Driver "Borrows" Grandparents' Van.
2. The PAP excludes
coverage for property damage to property that any insured owns or transports.
|
Example: Pete is a drummer for the
"Xploding Eardrums." He jumps into his
van and speeds toward a bowling alley on the other side of town. He's late
for a gig being held there. Not only does he have his drums, but he's also
carrying the other band members' instruments. None of the instruments survive
his abrupt meeting with a city bus. While the PAP will dutifully respond to
paying damages to the bus and his car, he and the other “Eardrums” won’t be
collecting payment for their implements of noise under the car policy.
|
|
3. Any property that an insured
has rented, uses or is caring for is also without protection if damaged or
destroyed. The good news is that an exception is made for damage involving an
insured’s home or garage.
4. This exclusion
negates bodily injury coverage to any person who is hurt while working for an
insured. However, an exception is made for domestic employees who aren’t
covered by and are not required to be covered by workers compensation.
5. If an insured is using a
covered auto to make money by transporting either people or property, that
insured has just made the vehicle ineligible.
|
Example: Timmy was glad when he got his
driver’s license. He was one of the first drivers at Gearhead H.S.
Unfortunately; he wasn’t thrilled that, instead of a new ‘kickbutt’
car, he inherited his mom’s ‘07 minivan. But things are looking up. At first,
he used it to take a friend or two back and forth to school. Now, Timmy’s van
is known as the “Gearhead Taxi Service” and he makes nearly $100 a week by
transporting kids to school/home, dances and sporting events. Let’s hope that
Timmy doesn’t get into an accident because this use of the van won’t be
covered by the PAP.
|
This exclusion has been
revised to make coverage intent clearer. It now makes reference to the coverage
ineligibility when any insured driver is actively using any vehicle in
conjunction with a transportation network platform. Active use means providing
such use as a driver. The exclusion applies both while seeking passenger
contacts and during transporting passengers. (09 18 change)
|
Example: Mandi’s full-time job is a
sous-chef for one of her town’s up and coming fusion Thai restaurants. Her
job love doesn’t help as much with her bills, so she recently joined U-GO as
a driver. So far, she’s making good money picking up on-demand driving jobs
during the day. One day, she dropped off a passenger as she received another
pick-up request. She strikes another car on the way to the pick-up site. When
she turns in a claim, she’s told that the loss won’t be covered under her
PAP. Her insurer points out that the use was excluded, even though, at the
time, she was not carrying a passenger. The disqualifying event was that she
was actively working under the U-Go application at the time of the accident.
|
Both the 01 05 and the 09 18 PAP editions
maintain an important exception to this exclusion, with a difference.
a. Coverage is still
permitted for vehicles used in traditional car pools (where the insured gets
gas and maintenance money from car pool riders).
b. An additional exception
is referenced, allowing coverage for a vehicle during its use in charity and
volunteer situations. Protection extends to instances of both ownership and
operation during such instances. (09 18 change)
The purpose of the next two exclusions is to bar the PAP from responding to
commercial auto exposures. These are best written
under a commercial auto policy.
Related Article: CA 00 01–Business Auto Coverage Form Analysis
6. No coverage is provided
if the accident happens while an insured is in the business of selling, fixing,
caring for, keeping or parking automobiles that are operated on public roads,
including road testing or vehicle delivery. However, you don’t have to worry
about this exclusion if the accident involves your covered car that’s being
handled by “you” or any “family member,” partner, agent or employees of any of
these insured parties.
Related Court Case: “Mechanic's Driving of Customer's Car Held Excluded”
7. This exclusion takes
coverage away from any insured while involved in any “business” that is NOT
described in exclusion 6, unless the business is ranching or farming. HOWEVER,
the exclusion is voided if it involves a private-passenger auto, van or pickup
that either is owned or is a temporary substitute for a covered auto that is
inoperable because it is broken down, lost, destroyed, or being repaired or
serviced. Further, any trailer used with an owned auto, van or pickup, or a
temporary substitute, is covered.
|
|
|
Examples:
Scenario 1: Chester owns a large
farm outside of town. His pickup is in town having its brakes
replaced. Chester needs to move a trailer loaded with bales of
straw to the other end of his property, so his neighbor lets him use her
pickup. While backing up onto a country road, the trailer gouges the side of
a passing car. This loss is covered, since the “trailer” was attached to a
temporary substitute for a covered vehicle. Further, the activity involved
farming, which is permitted.
Scenario 2: Now suppose that,
instead of farming, Chester repairs lawn equipment. His pickup is still
unavailable because of the brakes. Chester borrows the same
neighbor’s truck to deliver some mowers he fixed that are loaded on his
trailer. Chester backs up the truck and the trailer hits the same
passing car. Although the loss originated from use in Chester’s excluded
business activity, this loss is covered, since the borrowed pickup is
considered a temporary substitute for a covered auto.
Scenario 3: Okay, before Chester’s
neighbor and the passing motorist get too upset, let’s say that Chester once
again hits a passing car while using his neighbor’s pickup truck to deliver
some mowers he fixed that are loaded on his trailer. However, the reason he
borrowed the truck was because his own pickup was being used by his daughter
to go to tennis practice. There is no coverage in this situation. The loss is
excluded because Chester is involved in a business activity while
using a non-owned car that the policy does not define as an eligible
temporary substitute. If he had used his own pickup, it would have been
covered, since the definition of “your covered auto” (refer to definition J)
allows the incidental business use of an owned vehicle in the insured’s
business.
|
8. Don’t look for
coverage under the PAP unless you’re operating a covered car in the belief that
you have an insured’s permission.
Note: This standard is
subjective. This means that evaluation of a loss must include consideration of
the operator’s point of view, at least regarding his or her thoughts on whether
the car was operated with an insured’s permission.
|
Example: A friend of an insured borrows a
car a second time during a weekend that the insured is away from home. The
insured gave permission for the first use, but not the second. However, since
the friend can’t get in touch with the insured and as it was okay to use the
car before, she assumes that a second use is okay. If the friend has an
at-fault accident while using the borrowed car, her belief that she had
permission should support coverage being extended to cover the loss.
|
However, a significant change in
circumstances can render a different evaluation.
|
|
Example: Again, let’s use the situation
of an insured’s friend who borrows a car twice during the time that the
insured was away for a weekend. Again, the first time, the friend received
permission for the first use, which was to go on a downtown shopping trip.
All of this was with the insured’s knowledge and permission. The second use
is without the insured’s knowledge or permission but, as it was in the
original situation, the friend can’t get in touch with the insured and as it
was okay to use the car before, she assumes that a second use is okay.
However, in this scenario, rather than using the insured’s SUV for personal
use, the friend uses it to make deliveries for persons who bought furniture
from her Second Hand Shop.
|
If the friend has an at-fault accident while
using the borrowed car, her belief that she had permission might be challenged
by an insurer. While the friend’s assumption that a second personal use might
be okay, the assumption might not hold when the second use is for business. It
is possible that coverage for this situation could be denied.
Related Court Case: Was Unlicensed Driver A Permissive Operator?
This exclusion does maintain its grip on
reality. It DOES NOT apply to the use of a covered auto that is owned by an
insured and being operated by a “family member.”
|
Example: Junior storms out of the house and
uses his set of keys to the pickup immediately after his mom just said that
he could not use the truck for a date - this is a covered situation.
|
|
Example: An insured borrows his neighbor’s
dual axle pickup to help his mother-in-law move out of state. After he
returns home from the move, the insured goes out in his own car to celebrate
the fact that his mother-in-law is gone. While he is away, his son and a
friend decide to go cruising in the borrowed truck - this is NOT a covered
situation.
|
|
Example: A newly licensed daughter takes
mom’s brand-new car for a short drive even though she was threatened under
“penalty of being grounded forever” never to touch it. A mile away from her
home, the daughter causes an intersection collision - this is a covered
situation.
|
9. Next under
section A., no bodily injury or “property damage” is covered if separate
coverage exists (or would exist except for exhausted limits) under a nuclear
energy liability policy issued by three named sources (Nuclear Energy Liability
Insurance Association, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters and Nuclear
Insurance Association of Canada) or their successors.
10. Finally, under
section A., no liability protection extends to an insured for incidents of vehicle ownership, maintenance or use during the
period that both of the following apply to the vehicle:
a. There is a written
contract under which the vehicle is part of a personal vehicle sharing program
b. That vehicle is being
used by a person other than the named insured or a family member (as
defined) of the named insured who is participating in a program referenced in
10.a above (09 18 addition)
|
Example: Krista and her family live in a
cul-de-sac with four other households that have been neighbors for more than
a decade. They are all so close that they have a mini-sharing economy
situation where there’s a high level of trade and assistance among the
neighbor group. They all share a group-owned utility shed where all of the
neighbors have keys for 24/7 access. All the families that have extra
vehicles have copies of keys kept on a peg board in the shed. They also store
mowers, tools and equipment in the shed that are owned by individual
neighbors, but all neighbors can take out and use as needed. One neighbor who
does not own a car, Perry, caused a serious accident with a car he had just
borrowed from Krista. He advises Krista on the same day as the accident and
Krista take the information and files a claim.
Scenario 1 Her insurance company
investigates the claim and advises that, while the claim process will take a
while to determine payments, the loss is covered. The neighbors’ property
sharing agreement was an informal, verbal arrangement.
Scenario 2: Her insurance company
investigates the claim and advises that, unfortunately, the accident is not
covered. The neighbors’ property sharing agreement was a written document
with signed and notarized sets of sharing contracts kept by every neighbor.
The exclusion applies due to the loss meeting the terms of exclusion 10. a.
and b.
|
B. These are other
situations that are ineligible for coverage.
1. If your vehicle
doesn’t have at least four wheels and/or is principally designed for off-road
use, it isn’t protected under the PAP. An exception exists when such a vehicle
is used by an insured in a medical emergency. Trailers are still covered and so
are incidents involving golf carts as long as the golf cart is NOT owned by an
insured.
|
Example: Jeri and her teen-aged twins
are on their way to a weekend camping trip. She is towing a small trailer
that has an all-terrain cycle (ATC) loaded on it. The trailer and ATC were
lent to her by her ex-husband. A mile away from the campground, Jeri's car
slips off the road and onto a soft shoulder. She loses controls and crashes.
Her son is seriously hurt in the crash. Jeri tells her daughter to watch her
brother while she goes for help. The car is inoperable, but Jeri is able to
unload the ATC and drive it on the road into town. If Jeri is in another
accident while using the ATC on the roadway, it would be covered.
|
|
Related Article: Glossary of Basic Automotive Terms
2. A definite coverage
problem exists for any car that’s not a “covered auto,” which an insured either
owns or has available for her regular use. Why? Because such a vehicle should
either be listed or rated on an insured’s policy, or coverage should exist
under another party’s policy. If the PAP didn’t contain these exclusions, the
country could play “six degrees of insurance protection” with only about 100
people being policyholders and the other 250 million people being related for
coverage purposes.
Related Court Case: “Insured’s Use Is Not A Regularly Furnished Vehicle”
3. Similar to exclusion
2., the PAP disqualifies any car that’s not a “covered auto” that a “family
member” either owns or has available for their regular use, unless such a
vehicle is being either maintained or occupied by a named insured (and/or
resident spouse).
Related Article: PP 03 06-Extended Non-Owned Coverage – Vehicles Furnished or
Available for Regular Use
4. The intent of this exclusion is to bar protection for otherwise
covered vehicles for loss related to organized vehicle competitions
that take place within a facility meant for racing.
Traditionally this limitation applied to vehicles in such a facility while
practicing, preparing or competing in races or speed contests. However,
the latest edition of the PAP has been revised. Besides the activities just
listed, exclusion 4. (a. and b.) also applies to
driver skill training and driver skill events. In addition, the exclusion
applies to those participating in any of the above instead of being limited to
only those competing.(09 18 change)
|
|
Example: Carl and Josie own a ‘16 Acura,
which they’ve modified to perform at impressive speeds. One Saturday night, both
are in their Acura that’s parked in the pit area of a local race track.
They’re waiting to participate in a promotional “Amateur Couples Valentine’s
Day” Race. While waiting, Carl’s foot slips off the brake and they ram into a
pile of custom racing tires, damaging them and some other facility equipment.
Such a loss, while not technically involving a race, is still excluded
because Carl and Josie’s Acura was within a facility designed for racing AND
they had the intent of participating in a race.
|
5. This exclusion is new.
It bars coverage for loss involving flying vehicles, whether flight is their
sole capability or is among their features. (09 18 change)
Limit of Liability
A. The monetary limit
that appears on the policy declarations page is the maximum amount of coverage
that applies to the damages from any single loss. This maximum is not affected
by the number of vehicles, insureds, or claims involved, or the number of
vehicles or premiums appearing on the declarations page. This arrangement is true
of both bodily injury and property damage claims. The particulars of a given
loss may well affect how payments may be distributed, but the maximum remains
the maximum.
|
Example: Tony and Kim have a PAP with
the following limits:
|
|
|
Bodily Injury
|
$100,000/$300,000
|
|
Property Damage
|
$100,000
|
|
Medical Payments
|
$10,000
|
|
Collision
|
$500 Deductible
|
|
Other Than Collision
|
$500 Deductible
|
|
Uninsured Motorist
|
$25,000/$50,000
|
|
Just before Kim could say “watch
out,” Tony’s pickup slid out of control while trying to pass a car that
slowed down to make a left turn at an intersection. Besides hitting the car
waiting to turn, their truck also hit two other cars (both were car-pooling)
and a local TV station’s van. Following are the resulting claims for damages:
|
|
BI Claims
|
Amount
|
|
|
One
|
$43,000 (Severe burns)
|
|
Two
|
$12,000
|
|
Three
|
$51,500 (paralyzed)
|
|
Four
|
$24,000
|
|
Five
|
$17,800
|
|
Six
|
$8,500
|
|
Seven
|
$26,500
|
|
Total
|
$183,300
|
|
PD Claims
|
Amount
|
|
One
|
$23,000
|
These claims, all under a single
accident, could be handled in a wide variety of ways. Under bodily injury, all of the individual claimants qualify under the per
person insurance limits and the entire amount may also be paid under the per
accident limit. Under property damage, all the cars individually qualify for
coverage under the insurance limits, but the total amount exceeds the limits.
Depending upon how the loss is settled, one or more of the claimants may only
get partial settlement or could be squeezed out from any coverage at all, say
if car four received total payment for its huge loss.
|
|
Two
|
$14,700
|
|
Three
|
$19,600
|
|
Four
|
$83,000
|
|
Total
|
$140,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. This section
explains that, regardless of whether coverage exists under more than one coverage
part (specifically parts A, B and/or C), no duplicate payments will be made
under the PAP. This limitation means that, even if portions of a single claim
qualify for coverage under Part A - Liability as well as Part B - Medical
Payments and/or Part C - Uninsured Motorists coverage, an insured will not be
paid more than once for any portion of his loss. This clarifies the purpose of
the PAP to indemnify rather than enrich a claimant for their accidental loss.
Out-Of-State Coverage
The Personal Auto Policy emphasizes being
able to perform in compliance with the legal realities of the environment that
surrounds an eligible loss. Consistent with this objective, this provision
allows the PAP to respond to a loss according to a given state’s requirements.
Paragraph A.1. of this provision states that the policy will provide a higher
limit for bodily injury or property damage liability coverage to meet whatever
is minimally required by the state in which a covered loss occurs. Paragraph
A.2. explains that the PAP will comply with the minimum amounts and types of
coverages that may be required by a state’s compulsory insurance law while the
covered auto is being operated in that state.
|
Example: The policy may be written in state
A, which requires combined single limits, and the policy has a limit of
$300,000. As it happens, a loss occurs while the insured is traveling in
state B, which mandates the limit of liability to be applied in split limits
for bodily injury and property damage liability. The PAP would respond to the
accident by applying the $300,000 maximum consistent with the split limit
requirement, but it would not increase the maximum available.
|
Paragraph B of this provision states that no
one is eligible for duplicate payments.
This provision prevents technicalities to
bar or limit coverage because of the different ways that states structure their
coverage requirements. The provision allows travelers to cross state lines
without having to worry about making specific adjustments to their form.
Financial Responsibility
The PAP, when considered as valid proof of
financial responsibility, is to be interpreted as complying with the governing
financial responsibility law. This is helpful and flexible since financial
obligations required of drivers vary significantly by state.
Related Article: Financial Responsibility Limits
Other Insurance
In the event that other sources of liability
insurance exist, Part A-Liability Coverage of the Personal Auto Policy will pay
on a basis that equals its share of the total amount of insurance available to
cover an eligible loss involving an owned auto. If the loss involves a
non-owned auto, the PAP responds on an excess basis, paying only after the
primary policy has paid its limit.
|
Example: Let us examine an auto loss
that totals $10,000 in damages. The loss is covered by a PAP and some other
source of coverage. Both sources have coverage limits greater than the loss
amount.
|
|
Scenario 1: The loss involves an
auto owned by the insured and the PAP and the other coverage source offer the
same coverage limits. In this case, payment would be:
|
PAP - $5,000
|
Other Source - $5,000
|
|
Scenario 2: The loss involves an
auto owned by the insured and the PAP and the other coverage source offer
different coverage limits. Let us assume that the PAP’s limit represents 40%
of the available coverage. In this case, payment would be:
|
PAP - $4,000
|
Other Source - $6,000
|
|
Scenario 3: The loss involves an
auto that is NOT owned by the insured and the PAP and the other coverage
source offer the same coverage limits. In this case, payment would be:
|
PAP - $0
|
Other Source - $10,000
|
Note: If a nonowned auto
is involved, it would not matter if the PAP and the other source had different
limits. The other source would have to pay out its complete limit before the
PAP would contribute any payment.
Regarding other existing coverage, the
policy reads that, even for autos that qualify as temporary substitutes for
covered autos, this policy will respond as excess coverage over protection that
may exist elsewhere. However, this policy’s application of limits is
affected by one, different source of other insurance. When the other source of
protection is intended to act as a higher layer of liability protection, then
the PAP responds, per its applicable limits, ahead of that excess source. (09
18 Change)
