"Don White" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:29:07 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:
Yes, agree completely. But the original poster's complaint was his
belief
that by excluding a friend who borrows his car as an "insured" under
his
umbrella policy, that somehow left the O.P exposed. The O.P is still
covered when the inevitable lawsuit comes, his friend is not. So
increasing the limits on his underlying policies is a complete waste
of
money as far as coverage on himself is concerned.
BINGO! Give that man a ceegar!
Ok..... then, is the friend covered by any sort of insurance that *he*
purchased?
--
Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.
I will defer this for Calf Bill to answer based on his expertise in the
area of personal insurance. Let's see what he has to say on this. ;-)
Bilious Bill has a lot of claims, eh?
I thought RG was our infamous insurance hawker.
This is one of the few times he has an opportunity to add something of
value to the discussion...rather than his usual outhouse overflow.
Get your head out of Harry's ass. The OP was about not being covered by the
umbrella policy if someone not in the family is driving the vehicle.
Umbrella's cover you when all other insurance is exhausted. And if you are
not covered by the Umbrella when an non relation drives, it is worthless
insurance. It was never to cover the unrelated person, it was always to
cover Yourself and family if something happens that exceeds the limits on
your other policies. And most umbrella require at least a $500k policy on
the car, boat, etc. JimH, this is what an umbrella policy is. And if it
does not cover you (never covered the non-insured driver of your car) if an
uninsured or underinsured person drives your car, and gets in an accident,
your policy is worthless!