Trailer Coverage under Symbol 2

A Georgia subscriber recently asked the following question:

Our insured had and still has a business auto policy, CA 00 01. Physical damage coverage is under symbol 2, owned autos only; both comprehensive and collision coverages are insured.

In 2010, the insured purchased an SRG trailer. In 2014, the trailer was stolen. We denied coverage based on the fact that the trailer was never added to the current BAP. It was owned since 2010. The insured alleges they thought it was added at the original inception date. We denied based on the wording in the "owned autos you acquire after the policy begins" section of the BAP that states, "you have coverage for autos that you acquire of the type described for the remainder of the policy period." We felt that since the policy period expired and he did not add the vehicle then, there is no coverage for that vehicle.

Coverage under symbol 2 does include "only those autos you own (and for liability coverage any trailers you don’t own while attached to power units you own).

The agent feels that under symbol 2, that since the vehicle is "owned", we should insure it regardless of whether it is listed or not. He says that the insurer can pick up the premium for this trailer when the premium audit is done.

Please advise your opinion regarding the coverage for this unlisted owned trailer under symbol 2. Is there coverage for this owned vehicle under symbol 2 even if it was never listed?

ANSWER: Symbol 2 under the BAP is for owned "autos." The definition of "auto" includes a trailer. The insured owned the trailer at the time of the loss. Read More

Ride-sharing and Car-sharing

Ride-sharing and car-sharing are new methods people are using for transportation made possible by smart phone applications. There are large issues in both, from the exclusions on the personal auto policy to the regulations that are followed by taxis and limos, but are not being applied to the ride sharing companies.  Read More

Ordinary Diligence Requirement of the Insured

The insureds brought an action against the insurer and the insurance agent, alleging that the agent negligently failed to obtain 100 percent dwelling loss replacement coverage on the insureds' home, which subsequently sustained substantial fire damage. This case is Groce v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 5 N.E.3d 1154 (2014).

In 1997, the Groces purchased a home and obtained a homeowners policy from American Family. In 2007, the home sustained substantial fire damage, and a dispute arose regarding the amount of insurance claim benefits payable under the policy. The insureds filed a lawsuit contending that the agent failed to obtain a fire insurance policy that would have paid the entire cost of reconstructing the house. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the insurer and the agent. The insureds appealed.

The Supreme Court of Indiana noted that Indiana law requires that the cause of action in tort accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of ordinary diligence, could have discovered that an injury had been sustained as a result of the tortious act of another. Moreover, a claim against an agent for negligent procurement of the wrong coverage begins at the start of coverage if the breach was discoverable at the time through ordinary diligence, that is, generally when the policy is issued.  Read More