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.