Forums

Is there anything that says at what point the request should be made for the extension of coverage C. Before or After a loss?

In a word, Nathan, "No".

The only time I can imagine the coverage being requested "before the loss", would be in the form of an inquiry to the agent.   At that point in time a little bell should go off, and...the agent should recommend endorsing/adding the guest, partner, whoever, as an additional named insured for Cov C only as their interest applies.  Better yet, they should write a separate renters policy since the joint values of the contents of combined households may exceed the HO limit for C.  The separate policy would also provide additional liability coverage.

I wouldn't think that it would necessarily raise warning bells to ask if the contents of someone living in the household are covered in the event of loss. It would only raise alarm if a fire occurred the next day. The limits concern is a valid one. An agent might suggest raising the limits of the policy. A renter's policy is appropriate only if the partner is renting or leasing from the insured. Otherwise it should be unnecessary to purchase a second policy. The partner's belongings are already covered under the insured's policy. And, thank you, Joe, for giving us the perspective of a staff adjuster.

Given some of the discussion on this thread, I hope people haven't been denying claims for personal property of domestic partners, gay or straight. The policy does not support this denial.

Perhaps the liability issue can be resolved by adding the partner as an additional named insured. I confess to not knowing about what that would involve. Perhaps an agent or underwriter can weigh in on that topic.

Thanks, Steve and Joe. I posed the scenario mostly for the newer adjusters to answer. I know you guys have the knowledge to adjust accordingly. I guess I need to put future  scenarios out as a trainee question.

I didn't mean to make it sound like a "warning" bell... rather, that if this hypothetical question were posed to the agent, then they should advise the insured accordingly of certain limitations and solutions.

Had a claim while as a staffer involving a middle aged fella whose middle aged girlfriend moved in.  She brought with her quite a collection of property, including several thousands $$ of jewelry.   While they were gone on a cruise, a theft occurred and they got cleaned out pretty good.   They had inquired about the coverage for her belongings, and the agency gave them the vanilla answer about coverage for property of others.  Needless to say, a big bruhaha came about when an excess jewelry loss of about $25K was sustained.  Sure, the lady had dropped her own coverage and should have known better, because we learned that she had scheduled her jewelry previously.   Any agency that has had this happen will have that little bell go off when they get a question like that, and it should lead them to ask a few questions of their own.