I recently took a job that requires travel & renting a vehicle. While on business, if i get into an accident that is deemed my fault, who is liable for coverage- me or my employer?
Total Comments: 18
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:48 am Post Subject:
No, unless an endorsement titled Employees Hired Autos
An endorsement would not be needed, unless they call a coverage symbol and "endorsement" (which would be incorrect).
Hey, I just moved here a few years ago... I'm not LDS. :lol:
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 02:07 am Post Subject:
I think what he's driving at, tcope, is that when the employee rents a car, it wasn't rented by "you," usually defined as the named insured, i.e., the employer.
Consequently, the rental car wouldn't be an auto "you" hire. I don't doubt that coverage would be afforded to the employer for any respondeat superior liability, but who cares about him?
As to Lori's point, I don't doubt that rates soar when you divulge that you are using a car for regular business use. Were one to conceal that fact, though, I suspect that the insurer would rely on a "material misrepresentation" defense, not a specific policy exclusion. I just can't find a "business use" exclusion in my policy, except the usual stuff relating to transporting for hire, or relating to what we used to call the "automobile business." (Talking only private passenger autos here, not trucks or vans.)
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 03:11 am Post Subject:
I think what he's driving at, tcope, is that when the employee rents a car, it wasn't rented by "you," usually defined as the named insured, i.e., the employer.
Consequently, the rental car wouldn't be an auto "you" hire. I don't doubt that coverage would be afforded to the employer for any respondeat superior liability, but who cares about him?
One reason why I broke it up into two parts is that liability is one issue and coverage is another. If the renter is liable it then becomes a question of coverage. Under the Business Auto Policy the renter would be considered an insured under the policy if the company has coverage symbol 8 for Hired Auto. Who "You" is not a question and there is no definition of "You" in the BAP. You _is_ the named insured which is going to be a company. There is criteria for who is an "insured" and as mentioned above this is as follows:
Who is an insured:
b. Anyone else while using with your permission a covered "auto" you own hire or borrow except: [no exception applies to the OP's post]
Comp and Coll are even more liberal when it comes to coverage.
As to Lori's point, I don't doubt that rates soar when you divulge that you are using a car for regular business use. Were one to conceal that fact, though, I suspect that the insurer would rely on a "material misrepresentation" defense, not a specific policy exclusion.
That part of Lori's post does not apply as she was using a vehicle she owns.. not a company vehicle or a "hired" (rented) vehicle that she does not own.
I just can't find a "business use" exclusion in my policy, except the usual stuff relating to transporting for hire, or relating to what we used to call the "automobile business." (Talking only private passenger autos here, not trucks or vans.)
Normally you won't find one other then livery and in the business of selling, etc. What you will find an an "Other Insurance" clause that would come into play. This is where owning the vehicle and not owning the vehicle makes a big difference.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 04:30 am Post Subject:
You've got me on the ropes, here, tcope, because I don't have access to a specimen form. Hmm. . . "you own hire or borrow". You, you you. You sure there's no definition of "you" in the policy?
I'm looking at this case here, Seaco Ins. v. Davis-Irish, US Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 300 F.3rd 84, where the court examines what it styles a "business auto policy." They say "The first page of the policy form explains that, throughout the policy, the word "you" refers to the named insured shown in the declarations."The court goes on to say "Undeterred by the seemingly clear definition of the key pronoun ("you"), the appellant. . . . posited that "you," as used in this endorsement, reasonably could be understood to include Garrand's employees while acting in the course of employment." The court disagreed.
But we're agreed that coverage would be available under the Personal Auto Policy on either a primary or excess basis, no?
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 05:40 am Post Subject:
Interesting discussion by one LeRoy Utschig, CPCU, on the effect of Symbol 8 in a note titled "Individual Named Insured" and "Drive Other Car" Coverage. LeRoy outlines a situation where Joe, in the sporting goods business, is the named insured on a Business Auto Policy. His son, Mike, rents a SUV for a vacation trip. Mike gets into an accident, and demands coverage under Symbol 8. The upshot: "The "you" in this case is Joe. Had Joe rented the vehicle, there would have been coverage. However, it was Joe's son who leased the vehicle, so Joe's policy did not provide any coverage."
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 05:40 am Post Subject:
What I'm saying is that it does not matter who "you" is on the BAP (it is the named insured and it does not matter if it's the employee) as an employee is considered an insured under the BAP as mentioned in my prior post.
Yes, the PAP provides coverage to their insured but if the employe is in a rental and he/she is acting in the course of their employment and the BAP has symbol 8 for liability, then the BAP is primary on the rental car.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 05:48 am Post Subject:
His son, Mike, rents a SUV for a vacation trip. Mike gets into an accident, and demands coverage under Symbol 8.
I'm guessing Mike was not acting as an employee at the time of the rental so he's not an insured. Yes, liability is always afford to the named insured as "you" as long as it's a "covered auto". I do stand corrected, there is a definition of "you" but it's simply the named insured. On a BAP this is not a big point as the named insured is going to be a company, usually not a person.
I tend not to get into hypothetical discussions as they never have an ending.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 06:14 am Post Subject:
Didn't mean to be tiresome, tcope. All this is just academic to me, and I've nothing better to do with my time.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:48 am Post Subject:
No, unless an endorsement titled Employees Hired Autos
An endorsement would not be needed, unless they call a coverage symbol and "endorsement" (which would be incorrect).Hey, I just moved here a few years ago... I'm not LDS. :lol:
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 02:07 am Post Subject:
I think what he's driving at, tcope, is that when the employee rents a car, it wasn't rented by "you," usually defined as the named insured, i.e., the employer.
Consequently, the rental car wouldn't be an auto "you" hire. I don't doubt that coverage would be afforded to the employer for any respondeat superior liability, but who cares about him?
As to Lori's point, I don't doubt that rates soar when you divulge that you are using a car for regular business use. Were one to conceal that fact, though, I suspect that the insurer would rely on a "material misrepresentation" defense, not a specific policy exclusion. I just can't find a "business use" exclusion in my policy, except the usual stuff relating to transporting for hire, or relating to what we used to call the "automobile business." (Talking only private passenger autos here, not trucks or vans.)
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 03:11 am Post Subject:
I think what he's driving at, tcope, is that when the employee rents a car, it wasn't rented by "you," usually defined as the named insured, i.e., the employer.
One reason why I broke it up into two parts is that liability is one issue and coverage is another. If the renter is liable it then becomes a question of coverage. Under the Business Auto Policy the renter would be considered an insured under the policy if the company has coverage symbol 8 for Hired Auto. Who "You" is not a question and there is no definition of "You" in the BAP. You _is_ the named insured which is going to be a company. There is criteria for who is an "insured" and as mentioned above this is as follows:Consequently, the rental car wouldn't be an auto "you" hire. I don't doubt that coverage would be afforded to the employer for any respondeat superior liability, but who cares about him?
Who is an insured:
b. Anyone else while using with your permission a covered "auto" you own hire or borrow except: [no exception applies to the OP's post]
Comp and Coll are even more liberal when it comes to coverage.
As to Lori's point, I don't doubt that rates soar when you divulge that you are using a car for regular business use. Were one to conceal that fact, though, I suspect that the insurer would rely on a "material misrepresentation" defense, not a specific policy exclusion.
That part of Lori's post does not apply as she was using a vehicle she owns.. not a company vehicle or a "hired" (rented) vehicle that she does not own.I just can't find a "business use" exclusion in my policy, except the usual stuff relating to transporting for hire, or relating to what we used to call the "automobile business." (Talking only private passenger autos here, not trucks or vans.)
Normally you won't find one other then livery and in the business of selling, etc. What you will find an an "Other Insurance" clause that would come into play. This is where owning the vehicle and not owning the vehicle makes a big difference.Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 04:30 am Post Subject:
You've got me on the ropes, here, tcope, because I don't have access to a specimen form. Hmm. . . "you own hire or borrow". You, you you. You sure there's no definition of "you" in the policy?
I'm looking at this case here, Seaco Ins. v. Davis-Irish, US Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 300 F.3rd 84, where the court examines what it styles a "business auto policy." They say "The first page of the policy form explains that, throughout the policy, the word "you" refers to the named insured shown in the declarations."The court goes on to say "Undeterred by the seemingly clear definition of the key pronoun ("you"), the appellant. . . . posited that "you," as used in this endorsement, reasonably could be understood to include Garrand's employees while acting in the course of employment." The court disagreed.
But we're agreed that coverage would be available under the Personal Auto Policy on either a primary or excess basis, no?
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 05:40 am Post Subject:
Interesting discussion by one LeRoy Utschig, CPCU, on the effect of Symbol 8 in a note titled "Individual Named Insured" and "Drive Other Car" Coverage. LeRoy outlines a situation where Joe, in the sporting goods business, is the named insured on a Business Auto Policy. His son, Mike, rents a SUV for a vacation trip. Mike gets into an accident, and demands coverage under Symbol 8. The upshot: "The "you" in this case is Joe. Had Joe rented the vehicle, there would have been coverage. However, it was Joe's son who leased the vehicle, so Joe's policy did not provide any coverage."
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 05:40 am Post Subject:
What I'm saying is that it does not matter who "you" is on the BAP (it is the named insured and it does not matter if it's the employee) as an employee is considered an insured under the BAP as mentioned in my prior post.
Yes, the PAP provides coverage to their insured but if the employe is in a rental and he/she is acting in the course of their employment and the BAP has symbol 8 for liability, then the BAP is primary on the rental car.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 05:48 am Post Subject:
His son, Mike, rents a SUV for a vacation trip. Mike gets into an accident, and demands coverage under Symbol 8.
I'm guessing Mike was not acting as an employee at the time of the rental so he's not an insured. Yes, liability is always afford to the named insured as "you" as long as it's a "covered auto". I do stand corrected, there is a definition of "you" but it's simply the named insured. On a BAP this is not a big point as the named insured is going to be a company, usually not a person.I tend not to get into hypothetical discussions as they never have an ending.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 06:14 am Post Subject:
Didn't mean to be tiresome, tcope. All this is just academic to me, and I've nothing better to do with my time.
Add your comment