{"id":10578,"date":"2024-04-02T16:39:00","date_gmt":"2024-04-02T20:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/360mediations.com\/en\/?p=10578"},"modified":"2024-04-02T16:39:04","modified_gmt":"2024-04-02T20:39:04","slug":"family-protection-coverage-in-homeowners-policy-and-in-auto-policy-are-very-different","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.360mediations.com\/en\/family-protection-coverage-in-homeowners-policy-and-in-auto-policy-are-very-different\/","title":{"rendered":"Family Protection Coverage in Homeowner\u2019s Policy and in Auto Policy Are Very Different"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Most automobile insurance policies contain a Family Protection endorsement which essentially ensures that anyone covered by the auto policy will not be denied recovery in the event that they become injured by an unidentified, uninsured, or underinsured owner\/operator of another motor vehicle. \u00a0\u00a0In these situations, the Family Protection coverage would provide indemnity up to the limits purchased.<\/p>\n

Not as common, however, is to have Family Protection Coverage under a Homeowner\u2019s Excess Insurance Policy.\u00a0 This recent appellate decision delves into this coverage, and the Ontario Court of Appeal made it very clear that this coverage operates quite differently than the Family Protection Endorsement under the auto policy.<\/p>\n

This case was dealing with a situation where the at-fault owner\/operator had $1M of third-party liability insurance coverage, and the injured plaintiff had access to Family Protection coverage under both an automobile policy and a separate homeowner\u2019s policy: both with $1M of coverage.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Plaintiff had to concede that the $1M automobile<\/span> Family Protection endorsement was not triggered in this case, because the at-fault owner\/operator had the same level of insurance coverage ($1M): hence the at-fault driver was not \u201cunderinsured\u201d (or uninsured or unidentified).\u00a0<\/p>\n

The sole issue was whether the Family Protection Coverage in the homeowner\u2019s<\/span> policy operated the same way: the lower court believed it did, and concluded that there was no coverage under the homeowner policy because there was no instance of underinsurance when comparing the amount of insurance carried by the at-fault party ($1M) and the monetary limit of the homeowner\u2019s Family Protection coverage ($1M).\u00a0 The lower court also held that the homeowner\u2019s policy would only become triggered once the automobile Family Protection coverage was exhausted, and since that coverage was not triggered, it prevented the homeowner\u2019s Family Protection coverage from being triggered.<\/p>\n

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with the entirety of the judge\u2019s reasoning, and the appeal was allowed, thereby providing the injured plaintiff with access to the extra $1M under the homeowner<\/span> Family Protection Coverage.<\/p>\n

Although there is a lengthy critique of the various rulings and interpretations made by the lower court judge, the most important takeaway is that the test for \u201cinadequately insured\u201d is fundamentally different between the two policies, as follows:<\/p>\n