In an intersection accident, one person was killed. On behalf of the deceased party, the driver of a truck who caused the accident was sued. The driver had an automobile policy for his personal vehicle, but his insurer denied him coverage.

He sued his insurer, contesting their argument that the policy excluded coverage. Specifically, the insurance company denied coverage due to the accident involving his use of a category of car that was ineligible.

Click below to see how the courts viewed the circumstances. Their focus revolved around whether the insurance company’s categorization of the vehicle their insured drove during the accident was correct.

There was no dispute regarding the cause of loss. The issue, rather, involved the circumstances surrounding the ownership and use of the car by the person who was at fault. Bother personal and commercial auto policies are similar with respect to vehicle eligibility. Each type of policy has restrictions on the vehicles that are covered when losses occur.

In this instance, there was wording in the personal auto policy from which coverage was being sought. The insurer argued that the vehicle was regularly furnished for an insured’s use. Essentially, regularly furnished vehicles are pretty much the same as owned vehicles. Therefore, there’s an obligation to list and pay for coverage. Otherwise, they are excluded.

Click here for information on what a personal auto policy intends to protect. It is from the Personal Auto Policy Coverage Analysis of PF&M found in Advantage Plus.

It is so common to disagree over how coverage should be interpreted. An insurance professional rarely provides service as consequential as ferreting out exposures that can be mitigated or avoided entirely. To successfully accomplish this task, you have to be careful of assumptions.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that personal exposures are not as complex as those related to a business. However, this thinking can be dangerous. Less complex is means simpler…but NOT simple! It is important to be aware that individuals may often be exposed to far different risks of loss. To assist clients, you have to know their circumstances.

Click here to see a tool that may be quite helpful in assessing the myriad exposures faced by individuals. It is from the Personal Lines Survey. found in Advantage Plus.

Our case had one issue resolved. The court reviewed each party’s arguments and just didn’t buy what the personal auto insurer was selling. In its opinion, the negligent driver’s employer put a number of restrictions in place. Those restrictions resulted in the decision that the vehicle involved in the accident wasn’t regularly accessible.

Okay, listen for a moment. Do you hear that sound? It should be getting louder, Louder and WHOOSH! There it is! The litigation swirled around whether a personal auto policy should respond to the loss? While there was a ruling on the case, we don’t have to restrict ourselves to how the litigants and the courts framed the dispute.

Our takeaway is quite different. Our question is – Why wasn’t the coverage issue handled by the employer and/or its commercial auto policy? The vehicle was owned by the employer. The employer did not supply its employee with a separate set of keys, it required permission before the vehicle could be used and it only permitted use of the vehicle during the workday.

Click here for a message that can be sent to personal lines clients. It can open a door to discover gaps in protection. It is from Business Building Letters found in Advantage Plus.