About Us

akheel

"Calif Bill" wrote in
ink.net:

"akheel" wrote in message
...
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:21:12 -0400, "JimH" ask penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

"Hamish" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
I am in California. I just got the renewal bill for my personal
umbrella policy, and the "Important Notice" brochure that always
comes with it said, "The definition of insured is revised so that a
person or organization using an insured's auto, RV or watercraft is
no longer covered." So, when I let a valet park my car, he's not
covered. If I loan my car to a friend, relative, or neighbor,
they're not covered. If my ski boat was running - it isn't right
now - and I let a friend drive it to tow me, he's not covered.
(Yes, I know that my "underlying" car insurance covers them up to
the limits of that policy, but those limits are only enough to pay
for a stubbed toe.)

I called my agent and she was totally unaware of the change, and
asked me to fax her a copy of the brochure. Then, once she called
the underwriters, she still seemed unconcerned. She was happy to
quote me the increase in premiums to bring each of my car polcies
up to the same limits that were formerly covered by the Umbrella.
An additional $206 per year. I will pay the money, because I own a
home and it is vital that I remain insured up to a high limit.

I have taken the trouble to write this post because I think that a
lot of other people will fail to read the "Important Notice" (the
brochure is 17 pages long), will simply write the check like they
do every other year, and will end up with a big gap in their
coverage. And their insurance agent won't take the trouble to call
them or write them a personal letter telling about the big gap
that just opened up in their coverage. So, look out! And warn
your friends.

Ham

1. The valet company should have their own insurance.

*You* pay insurance premiums to make sure *you* are covered. Don't
assume that anybody else has you covered (they don't, though they
may try to indemnify themselves). If you have to take them to court,
be sure that you can afford all of the justice that you feel you are
entitled to....

2. Don't loan your car or boat to anyone outside your family.

Ok, I'll buy that, but it doesn't cover any non-loaner legitimate
use of your vehicle. Boats? Marina re-positioning your boat to
another slip (see? says they can do it in the lease agreement.....
Personal injury? You have a dangerous boat! Damage? See no evil,
hear no evil...... see #1 above)

3. Why should the insurance company cover anyone but you and your
family?

Because there *are* no-loaner issues to be dealt with....

So what is the big deal?

You have equity that other people want.... it really is a BIG DEAL!

While admittedly, I don't have the policy you are describing, so I
can't read it, I think you are misconstruing the change. What State
Farm is saying I believe is that your friend who borrows your boat is
no longer an insured on the umbrella, so if he borrows it and kills
someone, no insurance for him, at least from State Farm. But that
doesn't mean that you aren't still an insured if someone sues you as
the owner of the boat (they would probably claim you were negligent
to loan the boat to someone so obviously unskilled). You are still an
insured. Same with the car. In California, car owners are liable for
injuries caused by their car no matter what, even if not negligent
and not driving, up to $15K for injury to one person and $30K for
injury to multiple persons and $5K for property damange. Thus if you
loan your car to someone who causes an injury or damage, your auto
insurance will cover you up to these limits (by law). But if the
umbrella insurance company made your friend an insured, they would
have to pay up to the limits of the insurance, because your friend's
liablility (assuming he is found to be the negligent driver)is not
limited. So by eliminating your friend as an insured, they limit
their liability. It's really your friend who is screwed here, not
you. Moral of the story, YOU should never borrow someone else's car
or boat unless you are sure YOUR insurace covers you.

California minimum insurance is 15/30 (I think it is 20/40 now). But
if you own the car and own a house and stock, you will be sued for
those items by the killed persons heirs. You have the deep pockets
and are the owner of the car.

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.

JimH

"akheel" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
ink.net:

"akheel" wrote in message
...
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:21:12 -0400, "JimH" ask penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

"Hamish" wrote in message
arthlink.net...
I am in California. I just got the renewal bill for my personal
umbrella policy, and the "Important Notice" brochure that always
comes with it said, "The definition of insured is revised so that a
person or organization using an insured's auto, RV or watercraft is
no longer covered." So, when I let a valet park my car, he's not
covered. If I loan my car to a friend, relative, or neighbor,
they're not covered. If my ski boat was running - it isn't right
now - and I let a friend drive it to tow me, he's not covered.
(Yes, I know that my "underlying" car insurance covers them up to
the limits of that policy, but those limits are only enough to pay
for a stubbed toe.)

I called my agent and she was totally unaware of the change, and
asked me to fax her a copy of the brochure. Then, once she called
the underwriters, she still seemed unconcerned. She was happy to
quote me the increase in premiums to bring each of my car polcies
up to the same limits that were formerly covered by the Umbrella.
An additional $206 per year. I will pay the money, because I own a
home and it is vital that I remain insured up to a high limit.

I have taken the trouble to write this post because I think that a
lot of other people will fail to read the "Important Notice" (the
brochure is 17 pages long), will simply write the check like they
do every other year, and will end up with a big gap in their
coverage. And their insurance agent won't take the trouble to call
them or write them a personal letter telling about the big gap
that just opened up in their coverage. So, look out! And warn
your friends.

Ham

1. The valet company should have their own insurance.

*You* pay insurance premiums to make sure *you* are covered. Don't
assume that anybody else has you covered (they don't, though they
may try to indemnify themselves). If you have to take them to court,
be sure that you can afford all of the justice that you feel you are
entitled to....

2. Don't loan your car or boat to anyone outside your family.

Ok, I'll buy that, but it doesn't cover any non-loaner legitimate
use of your vehicle. Boats? Marina re-positioning your boat to
another slip (see? says they can do it in the lease agreement.....
Personal injury? You have a dangerous boat! Damage? See no evil,
hear no evil...... see #1 above)

3. Why should the insurance company cover anyone but you and your
family?

Because there *are* no-loaner issues to be dealt with....

So what is the big deal?

You have equity that other people want.... it really is a BIG DEAL!

While admittedly, I don't have the policy you are describing, so I
can't read it, I think you are misconstruing the change. What State
Farm is saying I believe is that your friend who borrows your boat is
no longer an insured on the umbrella, so if he borrows it and kills
someone, no insurance for him, at least from State Farm. But that
doesn't mean that you aren't still an insured if someone sues you as
the owner of the boat (they would probably claim you were negligent
to loan the boat to someone so obviously unskilled). You are still an
insured. Same with the car. In California, car owners are liable for
injuries caused by their car no matter what, even if not negligent
and not driving, up to $15K for injury to one person and $30K for
injury to multiple persons and $5K for property damange. Thus if you
loan your car to someone who causes an injury or damage, your auto
insurance will cover you up to these limits (by law). But if the
umbrella insurance company made your friend an insured, they would
have to pay up to the limits of the insurance, because your friend's
liablility (assuming he is found to be the negligent driver)is not
limited. So by eliminating your friend as an insured, they limit
their liability. It's really your friend who is screwed here, not
you. Moral of the story, YOU should never borrow someone else's car
or boat unless you are sure YOUR insurace covers you.

California minimum insurance is 15/30 (I think it is 20/40 now). But
if you own the car and own a house and stock, you will be sued for
those items by the killed persons heirs. You have the deep pockets
and are the owner of the car.

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!

JimH

"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. ;-)

HK

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?

Don White

"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.

Calif Bill

"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!

JimH

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

Yes it was.

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 is not worthless. It covers you and your family....the reason for
purchasing it in the first place. It does not cover others and why should
it? What is so hard in understanding that?

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.

Yep. Where have I said otherwise?

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!

Yep. So again tell me how I have said otherwise?

HINT: Please go to the original post to this thread.

Now please answer Gene's question. You are obviously the expert. ;-)

JimH

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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!

Huh? Care to repeat that, this time in English Bill?

Dan

Don White wrote:
"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.

Lemming...

JimH

"JimH" ask wrote in message
...

"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. ;-)

crickets

Hey Bill, we need an answer. ;-)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wash State Mandatory Boater Education Bill clears state senate:	[email protected]	General	46	March 21st 05 08:14 PM
hatch umbrella	Parallax	Cruising	1	October 27th 04 07:32 PM

Menu

About Us