Removed from Business Auto Insurance Coverage - Any Options?

[adjusterjack]

Under the ISO PAP, your employer is also an insured for vicarious liability:

B. "Insured" as used in this Part means:
3. For "your covered auto", any person or organization but only with respect to legal responsibility for acts or omissions of a person for whom coverage is afforded under this Part.

It's more likely that the employer has a Commercial Auto Policy (CA 00 01 or its equivalent) that defines "an insured" as:

Anyone else while using with your permission
a covered "auto" you own, hire or borrow
except:

(2) Your "employee" if the covered "auto" is
owned by that "employee" or a member
of his or her household.

Which eliminates coverage for "vicarious liability" if the employee uses his own vehicle.

And, like every P&C policy, there is this (or its equivalent):

Concealment, Misrepresentation Or Fraud
This Coverage Form is void in any case of
fraud by you at any time as it relates to this
Coverage Form. It is also void if you or any
other "insured", at any time, intentionally conceal
or misrepresent a material fact concerning:
a. This Coverage Form;
b. The covered "auto";
c. Your interest in the covered "auto"; or
d. A claim under this Coverage Form.

If the employer conceals the fact that the disqualified employee is continuing to drive it would be an expensive mistake.

 

[VolAgent]

It's more likely that the employer has a Commercial Auto Policy (CA 00 01 or its equivalent) that defines "an insured" as:



Which eliminates coverage for "vicarious liability" if the employee uses his own vehicle.

And, like every P&C policy, there is this (or its equivalent):



If the employer conceals the fact that the disqualified employee is continuing to drive it would be an expensive mistake.

I believe he is saying that liability coverage would extend from the OP's PAP to the business due to vicarious liability.

Again, why would you risk your business over one employee? Assuming that line of reasoning would even hold, there are so many pitfalls to the business for trusting that the employee's personal policy will provide coverage.

 

[InsCommentary]

Responding to:

It's more likely that the employer has a Commercial Auto Policy (CA 00 01 or its equivalent) that defines "an insured" as:

Anyone else while using with your permission
a covered "auto" you own, hire or borrow
except:

(2) Your "employee" if the covered "auto" is
owned by that "employee" or a member
of his or her household.

Which eliminates coverage for "vicarious liability" if the employee uses his own vehicle.

That just eliminates coverage for the employee under Symbols 1 or 9. The employer still has coverage under his own policy. The CA 99 33 is required to extend BAP coverage to an employee using his or her own car.

----------

Again, why would you risk your business over one employee? Assuming that line of reasoning would even hold, there are so many pitfalls to the business for trusting that the employee's personal policy will provide coverage.

I agree, but the question came from the employee, so I was trying to offer a potential, though highly unlikely, solution for him to propose. If the question came from the employer, I'd say exactly what you're saying. Too risky. Live and learn.

 

[adjusterjack]

the question came from the employee, so I was trying to offer a potential, though highly unlikely, solution for him to propose.

I think the OP already proposed something like that and the employer said no.

I asked if I could drive my own car with my own insurance, the answer was no.

 

[InsCommentary]

I think the OP already proposed something like that and the employer said no.

That's why I asked "why" in case a reason was given (insured status, coverage, limit, etc.) that he could counter.