Regulators Examining Insurers’ Cyber Security Readiness
Immigrant Driver’s Licenses Signed in Colorado
E&O Insights: Why Personal Umbrellas Generate Claims
10 Things to Know About Entertainment, Sports & Special Events
Washington Public Employee Fired Over Fruit Pie Suing City
4 Strategies to Make Producer Lifecycle Management a Priority
Motorcycle Injuries Rise After Helmet Laws Weakened: Study
Making the Most of Mediation, Part 2Free Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
Unfortunate for the owner of the vehicles, but a very correct decision.
The owner of the vehicles will be fine. These cases were about PIP (i.e. no-fault medical) coverage for the drivers.
What kind of judge ruled that an exculded driver should be afforded coverage??? What did they think it meant when they excluded a driver???
Yes, it should be fairly simple: “Mr. Insured, in exchange for a lower premium you have chosen to exclude your spouse”. But somehow judges screw up this concept. Maybe because judges are smarter than the rest of us and can read between the lines?
It often happens because under standard policy wording, a spouse is the “named insured” and most state will not allow you to exclude them. It is considered illusory coverage.
Texas is a good state in order to excluded a person from the policy you need to have a signed exclusion. Its kind of hard for the insured to argue they didnt want the person to be excluded when they signed the document to excluded the person.
exclude, not excluded. You can’t “excluded” someone, but you can “exclude” them. English.
The Named Insured has coverage (ie. the father, other spouse). Just not the driver – for PIP, UM, or Med Pay.
The named insured has coverage, just not the driver. Liability against the driver – not covered. Liability against the insured – covered.