Posted by Chris on May 23, 2003 at 11:12:42:
In Reply to: Re: Read the policy posted by Jim Hoffmann on May 23, 2003 at 11:01:57:
Yes, but how do explain the convlouted logic that Tim is covered as the as additionally insured as the boat operator, but the boat (Tim) is not covered?
If the policy says the owner is covered, and the boat is sued, yet they refuse coverage, does that not mean that they are not honoring thier policy?
You hypothetical case is not what happened here. What happened in this case is they are refusing coverage they should provide.
You have also completeley missed the point that now, they will not allow a boat to be named as additionally insured under any circumstances. Did you ask them about that?
I too got the same convoluted reasoning from Ashley that you seem to have bought into.
Post a Followup