Alright, I'll play nice and maybe Chas, Evan, and MarkIV will take it easy on me.
If there is an exclusion in your policy, take for instance my Youthful Operator exclusion (which I really did have), and I get a letter from my insurance carrier that says
"Yes, Patrick all your family is covered by your policy" it does
NOT act to change the policy. My kids will still be excluded under the policy, meaning absolutely no coverage. There's a provision in every policy that deals with just that sort of thing, meaning a mis-communication or screw up. Errors happen all the time, insurance agents and brokers say the wrong things all the time, insurance carriers say the wrong things, too. That's why there's a provision in the policy that says that changes must be by Endorsement only. So what do I do if a horrible accident occurs, and I have something from the carrier that says "you're covered" but the policy says "you're not covered?" This happens more than you might think. And if we stop there, I will lose every time. But we won't, so we will step up to the judicial plate with two strikes against us, and swing for the fences... because we have no choice. In order to establish coverage, I'm going to have to pull out an equitable doctrine that has some pretty high hurdles and it's going to be different in different states. One of the elements of that doctrine is that I'm going to have to be "ignorant of the true facts," along with detrimental reliance, and some other stuff. What this means is that I'm going to have to say to the judge that either I, Patrickt, willfully chose not to read my policy at all (but inquired about coverage nonetheless) or, if I did read it, that I couldn't understand it." In my case, that doesn't stand a ghost of a chance. The judge will politely say
"Patrick, you've been lawyering for three decades, a good chunk of that for the industry itself, and you expect to flush that crap in my court room?" Not only will I lose, I'll be lucky if he doesn't refer me to the bar's disciplinary committee. Now, take the exact same facts, and substitute G-Pete in -- he might have a chance. And there are a lot of cases where people do win, on just this type of stuff. One advantage of using an independent agent to help you place your insurance is that you can sue them if something goes horribly wrong, a mistake is made, and your back is up against the wall. They all carry Errors and Omissions coverage for just this sort of thing and they will happily try and place an Endorsement that covers you -- so they make a dollar and coverage is where it should be. But, obviously, you don't want to rely on being able to sue your agent. So, your best bet is to sit down and read your policy. You can do it. It's not that hard. Really. And look at it, and think about it. If there's a big fat exclusion that says kids under 25 years are excluded from this policy, then you buy an Endorsement from the carrier to cover that (if you're going to let your kids drive your Cobra). If someone's policy had a nice fat exclusion for Bill Board tires, non-DOT tires, or pink with polka dot tires (which it doesn't) , a letter from the carrier saying
"yes, you're covered" is not going to change the policy. And depending on the facts, and the sophistication of the players, some will win, but a lot will lose. Stepping up to the judicial plate with two strikes against you always sucks. Hopefully this helps.
