Home Umbrella policy.... Ins Co telling us they need a list of my guns????

[dcmdon]

This. It's an umbrella policy. If you shoot someone you may get sued. If you expect the insurance company to pay the claim you should at least let them know you have firearms and cars and large dogs and boats etc. All kidding aside insurance companies are tougher on pools than guns and boats are right up there too.

My insurance agent once told me that you should never lie to your ins co. Simply because if you lie about something, you can't expect to be covered. He however also said that you are under no obligation to volunteer anything.

For example, I remember when a friend's kid turned 16. He called his ins co and added his kid to his policy. They of course asked him how old, and with a 16 y/o driver, his rates went therough the roof.

This was COMPLETELY unnecessary. Every driver of your car is covered by your policy.

**Edit** I know this to be true when it happened in the state of CT, don't take this to be true in your situation*** The smart thing to do would have been to tell them nothing. However if they ever asked you to update anything and ask for drivers you would need to tell them.

Re pools - Insurance companies operate based on statistics derived by actuaries. They are harder on Pools because statistically pools are MUCH more dangerous. Going from memory, I remember researching that roughly 60 kids die every year from accidental gunshot wounds. Roughly 600 kids die every year in swimming pools.

Don

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This was COMPLETELY unnecessary. Every driver of your car is covered by your policy. The smart thing to do would have been to tell them nothing. However if they ever asked you to update anything and ask for drivers you would need to tell them.

Blanket statements like this are dangerous, as someone who relies on the accuracy of such a claim may be doing so at considerable personal risk.

This depends on the insurance regulations in your state. In many states your statement is absolutely inaccurate, and failure to notify the insurance company of another driver could result in no coverage; coverage for the statutory minimum; or the amount of coverage that the premium you paid would have purchased had you promptly reported the additional driver.

 

[JimB]

how did they find out?????????/

 

[appraiser]

I remember when a friend's kid turned 16. He called his ins co and added his kid to his policy. They of course asked him how old, and with a 16 y/o driver, his rates went therough the roof.

In MA every person who is a household member has to be listed on your auto policy or the insurance can deny comprehensive coverage if it would have triggered a higher premium. So not adding the kid to the auto policy is a risky move, and IMHO one that would trigger a denial of coverage if something went wrong.

Insurance companies charge premiums based on risk. A minor child that you as a parent are financially responsible for if the child is found to be negligent or found to be partly responsible for part of a judgment is going to be a bigger risk, and the company is entitled to raise the premium to reflect the risk assumed.

Your kid poles a car speeding 2 MPH over the posted speed limit on a wet road, making a vegetable of his buddy in the passenger seat that was not wearing his seat belt. At trial IMHO if they find your child 50% responsible for the sake of conversation, on a 100/300 policy, the auto policy limits are exceeded by hospital bills, and you hope to God the umbrella is going to cover the rest of the judgement, but the insurance company lawyer says nope, kid wasn't listed on the car policy, so the umbrella isn't in force. That assumes that the car insurance company doesn't just write a check for the policy limit and leaves you and your homeowners insurance to defend you in court.

The idea of insurance is to transfer the risk to someone else, doing something to jeopardize the transfer of that risk is not wise

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Your kid poles a car speeding 2 MPH over the posted speed limit on a wet road, making a vegetable of his buddy in the passenger seat that was not wearing his seat belt.

Under MGL, you will NOT be allowed to introduce the fact that the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt as evidence of contributory negligence or failure to mitigate damages. That was a key protection inserted into the seatbelt law as trial attorneys feared it could reduce contingency fee payouts on the contributory negligence/failure to mitigate theory.

 

[dcmdon]

Blanket statements like this are dangerous, as someone who relies on the accuracy of such a claim may be doing so at considerable personal risk.

This depends on the insurance regulations in your state. In many states your statement is absolutely inaccurate, and failure to notify the insurance company of another driver could result in no coverage; coverage for the statutory minimum; or the amount of coverage that the premium you paid would have purchased had you promptly reported the additional driver.

Absolutely right. My apologies. Weasel words added to the original post.

**Edit** I know this to be true when it happened in the state of CT, don't take this to be true in your situation***

Don