Correct to a point. What the adult child doesn’t have when they move out is drive other car coverage. For example, when they are no longer a resident of the household and rent a car there is no coverage for driving the rental car under the parents policy.
The companies might deny any claim due to ‘garaging address’ not being properly disclosed, especially if the parents don’t own the vehicle per the title. I’ve seen where the parent leaves the kid on the policy, the kid moves out and the unlicensed boyfriend gets in an accident – the insurer called that fraud, denied the claim and cancelled the policy at the next renewal. I don’t remember who was on the title.
I think the point we should take away from this, and certainly the point agents need to stress to their policyholders that do not want to take out a new policy for the child out of HH because, “will that be more expensive?”, is this: You never want to give an insurance company the right to deny a claim…(they have way more money, and way more legal representation, and have knowledge of years of court case precedents in their knowledgebase) Mr Client who always want the cheapest rate: …I am not saying they would deny a claim in this situation, but the problem is, I also cannot say for sure they would pay the claim. Rather than looking at what you will pay Mr. client, look at what it could cost you if you “Hope” they will pay your claim.
Correct to a point. What the adult child doesn’t have when they move out is drive other car coverage. For example, when they are no longer a resident of the household and rent a car there is no coverage for driving the rental car under the parents policy.
The companies might deny any claim due to ‘garaging address’ not being properly disclosed, especially if the parents don’t own the vehicle per the title. I’ve seen where the parent leaves the kid on the policy, the kid moves out and the unlicensed boyfriend gets in an accident – the insurer called that fraud, denied the claim and cancelled the policy at the next renewal. I don’t remember who was on the title.
I think the point we should take away from this, and certainly the point agents need to stress to their policyholders that do not want to take out a new policy for the child out of HH because, “will that be more expensive?”, is this: You never want to give an insurance company the right to deny a claim…(they have way more money, and way more legal representation, and have knowledge of years of court case precedents in their knowledgebase) Mr Client who always want the cheapest rate: …I am not saying they would deny a claim in this situation, but the problem is, I also cannot say for sure they would pay the claim. Rather than looking at what you will pay Mr. client, look at what it could cost you if you “Hope” they will pay your claim.