Insurance Journal Forums

Here's one for you: A mobile home in not so great condition in a protection class 9 forested area not in a mobile home park that is owned by the officer of a company and the company is making the note payments and they are renting it out to someone else and it is currently for sale. The customer isn't really concerned too much about losing the home to fire but more about the liability.

So are you looking for the liability only? Extend it from his homeowner's policy, that's probably the easiest way.

LadyBroker wrote:So are you looking for the liability only? Extend it from his homeowner's policy, that's probably the easiest way.

He is renting.

You should still be able to extend from his renter's policy, the CPL portion is the same. Or he doesn't have Renter's insurance, in which case, you can't extend....why not quote him a renter's policy, and quote his autos, too!

LadyBroker wrote:You should still be able to extend from his renter's policy, the CPL portion is the same. Or he doesn't have Renter's insurance, in which case, you can't extend....why not quote him a renter's policy, and quote his autos, too!

Yes that is an idea. I just need to clear up the the little problem of his partners in his corp being partial "owners" as he says. So I got a copy of the appraisal which shows who holds title which is him as an individual, yet when I talk to him he says that he and the other officers own it and that the corp holds the note and it is really owned by all three of them. Then in the same conversation he said there was a mortgagee (bank). So I explained that the named insured would be the only one defended in a lawsuit and that would be him as an individual, unless we named his corp as an additional insured. So my concern is if I do it as an extension on the CPL and somehow the corp or other individuals get named in the suit and somehow they are under the impression that they are covered.

Quick thoughts,

#1 Making payments on private assets from a corp account seems wrong and I would be out

#2 No clear title, out

#3 Time spent vs commission, out

mica.cooper wrote:Quick thoughts,

#1 Making payments on private assets from a corp account seems wrong and I would be out

#2 No clear title, out

#3 Time spent vs commission, out

I agree, especially with the first two, however I insured their main business which is a good premium.

WOW. I must commend you ---- were I to ever have an account with so many dysfunctional and tawdry risk charcteristics, I would not have the nerve to share all the sordid details for others to see. Tell this great client you deserve an annual fee on top of any commission you're getting, and best of luck explaining this risk profile to any underwriter worth their salt.

njexpat wrote:WOW. I must commend you ---- were I to ever have an account with so many dysfunctional and tawdry risk charcteristics, I would not have the nerve to share all the sordid details for others to see. Tell this great client you deserve an annual fee on top of any commission you're getting, and best of luck explaining this risk profile to any underwriter worth their salt.

I don't mind sharing all the tawdry details. These are the things we come across every day as agents. Their company that I insured is an engineering firm and I provide their PL, GL, WC, and Business Auto as well as his individual flood policy on his main residence he rents.

Well here's an update. The property is in his name and I explained that any policy written would show him as an individual as a named insured and the policy would only be obligated to him and no one else. I also am the the type that gets everything in writing and requires him to sign off on it.

I got pictures to show the underwriter as well. They advised Lloyds could potentially write a rental mobile home which is not located in a mobile home park. They even said they could put it in the name of the company but that is no longer an issue. I think the main issue now will be the protection class.

The customer really is a good guy, loyal, and I don't think they are trying to pull anything funny. So I wouldn't feel right kicking him to the curb. Of course, if this was someone who came to me and wanted me to write it monoline, I would have kicked him to the curb a while ago.

Rob wrote: Yes that is an idea. I just need to clear up the the little problem of his partners in his corp being partial "owners" as he says. So I got a copy of the appraisal which shows who holds title which is him as an individual, yet when I talk to him he says that he and the other officers own it and that the corp holds the note and it is really owned by all three of them. Then in the same conversation he said there was a mortgagee (bank). So I explained that the named insured would be the only one defended in a lawsuit and that would be him as an individual, unless we named his corp as an additional insured. So my concern is if I do it as an extension on the CPL and somehow the corp or other individuals get named in the suit and somehow they are under the impression that they are covered.

From an E&O stand point do you as an agent OWE anything to the partners? i.e. are they also clients? Does the corporation have a CGL policy that would cover their exposure? It sounds like you've covered the first question by getting the copy of the appraisal. On the second question just send a letter to the corporate owners explaining who's covered by the policy and why. Again, your first duty is to your client.

gregcw wrote:

Rob wrote: Yes that is an idea. I just need to clear up the the little problem of his partners in his corp being partial "owners" as he says. So I got a copy of the appraisal which shows who holds title which is him as an individual, yet when I talk to him he says that he and the other officers own it and that the corp holds the note and it is really owned by all three of them. Then in the same conversation he said there was a mortgagee (bank). So I explained that the named insured would be the only one defended in a lawsuit and that would be him as an individual, unless we named his corp as an additional insured. So my concern is if I do it as an extension on the CPL and somehow the corp or other individuals get named in the suit and somehow they are under the impression that they are covered.

From an E&O stand point do you as an agent OWE anything to the partners? i.e. are they also clients? Does the corporation have a CGL policy that would cover their exposure? It sounds like you've covered the first question by getting the copy of the appraisal. On the second question just send a letter to the corporate owners explaining who's covered by the policy and why. Again, your first duty is to your client.

Yes the corporate officers are officers of the engineering firm for which I provide PL/GL coverage. However, the mobile home is titled in the name of just one of the officers as an individual.

Talk with Foremost about it. They do rental Mobile Homes on acreage, and also will do the premises Liability so long as there is no business being run through the property.

Swymmer