Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
This is pretty close but a couple things to clarify:
SEF 20 is loss of use coverage. It covers the "reasonable cost" of a rental car if your vehicle is laid up due to an insurable claim up to the limit of the endorsement, usually $1500.
SEF 27 is Legal Liability for non owned vehicles and while the name implies it, I've never once in my career heard of the 27 being used to cover a friends vehicle. The policy follows the vehicle, not the driver. You loan your vehicle, you're loaning your policy as well. Another thing to consider is the limit of SEF27, check yours. They can be as low as 30k Canadian MSRP which is better than nothing but it should be much higher than that. The difference between a $30k limit and $75k is minimal. 27 applies in Canada and USA only. Renting a car anywhere else (including Mexico) requires an alternative such as a credit card.
|
If there's an error in understanding, I'd love to get it clarified before #### hits the fan due to incorrect application due to misunderstanding. Clarifying the Canada/USA factor was helpful. Thanks. I hadn't noticed it previously because it was in fine print. Excellent to know. Your post had be intrigued, so I poked into the situation during my lunch hour.
I'm quite certain that the SEF 27 policy was described to me as a sort of back up where I could apply my own vehicle insurance to a vehicle (optional) to one I do not own (not just rentals). Friend's borrowing my vehicle are covered under my regular insurance, as long as they don't borrow it with enough frequency that they should be named in my policy. I know SEF 20 is different than SEF 27. I'm just saying it looks like it's something that I seem to have to have before I can add SEF 27.
Everything described in the links below though seems consistent to what my broker told me.
This link has the most explanation online for SEF27: resulting from damage caused to vehicles of which named insured is not owner. The blog is from a company in Quebec. No idea if this affects anything. Limit loss is mentioned, but no details on limit loss. Does explicitly say it's vehicle you don't own, not just rentals.
https://infoassurance.ca/en/blog/aut...ou-do-not-own/
This link does mention that the SEF 27 clause is useful for Canada US only. So it was a good reminder. It mentions limit loss is based on limits of the coverage on the insurance policy, which I think is a good thing to be aware of. Mentions applying your insurance policy to a rental vehicle, doesn't mention other instances where you don't own the vehicle, but the link does seem to imply the post is a specific response about car rentals.
https://www.brokerlink.ca/blog/car-rentals-and-sef-27
This link specifically highlights Ontario and Alberta and differentiates a OPCF 27: Liability for Damage to Non-Owned Automobile(s) and SEF 27: Legal Liability for Damage to Non-Owned Automobile. Says it's same coverage you have, but on a vehicle you don't own. Also has the reminder it's for Canada/US only. Never heard of this clause, but the OPCF 27 endorsement says coverage limit to $25-50K. No mention of limit for SEF 27. I'd assume it's because SEF 27 as mentioned in another link can vary based on your coverage on your vehicle.
https://rates.ca/resources/auto-insu...ntario-alberta
My policy says this:
Quote:
AB-S.E.F. No. 27
Legal Liability for Damage to Non-Owned Automobile Endorsement
In consideration of the premium charged, as set out in the Policy or in the Certificate of Automobile Insurance, the Insurer
agrees:
(a) Where the Insured is an individual or individuals, to indemnify the Insured, the Insured’s spouse/adult
interdependent partner and all drivers listed in the Policy;
(b) Where the Insured is a corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other entity, to indemnify all
individuals named below and the spouse/adult interdependent partner of each,
against the liability imposed by law or assumed under any written agreement for loss or damage arising from the care, custody or control of any automobile including its equipment and resulting from loss or damage caused by a peril
specified below.
Insuring Agreements
Section C: Loss of or Damage to Non-owned Automobiles
SPF #1 Perils Deductible
Subsection
1. All Perils
2. Collision or Upset $500 * 3. Comprehensive $250 * 4. Specified Perils
*A deductible applies on each claim, except for loss or damage caused by fire, lightning or by theft of the entire automobile.
Provided that: 1. The perils for which indemnity is provided in this endorsement are as described in Section C of the Policy;
2. The indemnity provided by this endorsement applies only to an automobile of the private passenger type(s) or only
with respect to automobiles in the Insured’s care, custody or control in connection with the Insured’s business of
- as declared -;
3. The Insurer shall not be liable for loss or damage
a. to any automobile which is owned or licensed in the name of any person insured by this endorsement or any
person residing in the same dwelling premises as that person; or
b. to any automobile which is owned or leased by the employer of these persons; or
c. to any “Customer’s Automobile” as defined in 8(b) of the General Provisions, Definitions and Exclusions of
the Standard Garage Automobile Policy (SPF #4);
4. Where applicable to the coverage provided by this endorsement, the Additional Agreements of Insurer under
Section A - Third Party Liability of the Policy shall apply to this endorsement;
5. The Insurer shall not be liable under this endorsement for any amount in excess of $75,000 for any one occurrence, exclusive of amounts under provision 4 above;
6. Such automobile is being used with the consent of the owner or lessee.
Except as otherwise provided in this endorsement, all limits, terms, conditions, provisions, definitions and exclusions of
the Policy shall have full force and effect.
|
So, my understanding is now the following:
- SEF 27 clause may have slight variations from province to province. It may not be ubiquitous wording from province to province which could cause slight variations (ie: coverage limits), but the major parts should be identical.
- SEF 27 coverage can vary within province and person to person depending on the details of their insurance agreement/vehicle(s) insured with their insurance provider.
- SEF 27 applies to Canada/USA only.
- SEF 27 is applying the insurance coverage for those named in the agreement to another vehicle not owned by those named in the agreement... with minor
- SEF 27 makes reference to section A - third party liability, but has a limitation of $75K (in my instance) for any one occurrence.
The last one is the interesting part I'll probably contact my broker later this summer to clarify. Section A has a limit (Normally) around 1-2 million bucks ish (ie: Even on the credit card rental clauses I've read). It includes property damage and bodily injury. I assume it might mean that if a single "invoice" is over $75K it maxes out? Doesn't totally seem like it's supposed to be $75K total... so worth clarifying if multiple instances under $75K are OK would be quite important.
That would make sense in terms of a limitation of $75K (in my case) for a single item like a vehicle. But I'm actually not as concerned about that now. I'm wondering if the max is still the full million or whatever as long as individual items are capped at $75K because some of those might easily be in excess of the vehicle. I'm more concerned about the bodily injury clause and clarifying property damage such as if you were sued for injury to someone/death whether that too is capped at $75K or if hitting some property that takes $100-200K to fix. I've always assumed SEF 27 was an either or clause and doesn't stack with any other coverages (ie: excess on primary coverage cannot be dealt with by another coverage or endorsement), but it'll be good to get clarification on that.
Clarifying how different coverages interact with each other (stack or not/highest coverage option you have available only) and other limitations/variations could explain why the SEF27 coverage vs the rental option ones vary so ridiculously in price. That way it'll be easier to clarify what coverage one might have, whether what someone has is adequate or if topping up (or if it's even possible to top up) is appropriate on a case by case basis.