Vehicle totaled, has no replacement, would canceling insurance be a lapse

[Derick Lossing]

So I have a customer that had an at-fault accident back in September. We totaled his vehicle out and sent him a check for reimbursement. Shortly after the customer totaled his car a local doctor gave him orders not to drive until his heart starts doing better. He is wanting to cancel his policy come renewal (end of this month), because, well... He doesn't have a vehicle, and there is no need for insurance right now. He is not expecting to get a replacement anytime soon. He said he might get another vehicle come March or April if his doctor states its okay for him to drive by then. With that being said, I do not want this to create a lapse in insurance, (even though there is no need for insurance with no vehicle) because my company would consider this a lapse in insurance. Is there anyway around this? I thought about possibly trying to get my customer to go up to the doctors office and getting proof of the doctors orders (that he cant drive) and submitting that proof to our company, but I do not know if that will suffice. Does anybody have any tips on how to handle this situation. Thank you in advance.

 

[fed up]

Since there is no car to insure, there would be no need for comp or collision and you could suspend the policy or lower the liability to the lowest valued approved by the state. This would keep the policy active for next to nothing (suspending coverage) and can place a vehicle on the policy when the choice allows. There would be no gap. We do it in Maryland in similar situations because we have similar guidelines on prior insurance. Technically they are insuring a vehicle that doesn't exist and may have to keep comp on it but that is peanuts