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.
|
I think this is the important part. There is likely no written agreement (nor would I rely on that anyways) when borrowing a friends car but there certainly is in a rental situation.
Quote:
|
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's with respect to liability to other people or their property. The rental car would be considered a temporary substitution of your own. It's basically being treated like it's yours. The liability limit would not be applied to physical damage to the rental vehicle. Whatever the limit of the 27 is would be the most your insurer would pay out for physical damage to the rental vehicle.
I've seen many claims involving people getting into accidents with their friends vehicle and in each instance, the payout was from the owners policy, not the borrowers regardless if the 27 is on the borrowers policy or not. I'd tread carefully assuming the SEF 27 would respond in that situation.