Looking at the insuring agreement of the ISO personal auto policy (I assume the parents' policy is written on a similar policy form), the husband would be an insured under his parents' policy based upon B 2 (any person using “your covered auto”). 

If they do not accept the Extended Non-Owned endorsement, three potential gaps/concerns immediately seem evident: 

1. The parents could have a lapse in coverage and the husband of the newly married couple would not have any liability coverage under their personal auto policy because the vehicle is available for his regular use. They feel confident that his parents would never let their policy lapse.
2. The parents could have liability limits lower than their policy. They are certain that his parent's policy has equal or greater liability limits than their policy.
3. The policy form could be something other than ISO and be more restrictive in providing coverage to “Any person using 'your covered auto.'” We have not addressed this concern.

Are there any other gaps besides these three being plugged by the Extended Non-Owned that I am missing?

Related: Read Amrhein's previous column “Who Knew?”.

Ah, dear reader, how things have changed since the insurance days of my youth. For example, when it came time to head off for my freshman year of college, campus rules forbade me from taking my beloved high-school chariot. Although this would save gas and oil expense, having no job that first semester meant no money for the insurance payment. Upon asking Dad if he would help with that problem, he assured me he would, and once I left town he promptly sold the car. 

His approach to my request for help with college expenses also was a model of efficiency. Dad graciously sat me down, helped me work out a budget, explained how far he was willing to help, but with one clear understanding: All such aid, loans, personal support and food plans would cease immediately upon his finding that I (1) failed a class, (2) was seen on television as part of a campus “riot” (his word; we would have called it a “protest”) or (3) got married. The latter was particularly short and sweet: In his opinion, if I thought I was old enough to get married, then I was old enough to be on my own. 

You may or may not agree with Dad's actions, but you have to admit he kept it simple. Insurance likes simple. If you had doubt of this basic truth, look no further than this month's query. Here the parents decided to do a 180 compared with my dad. Although I admire their concern and pledge of continued support for their newly married son, from the insurance viewpoint they have deeply muddied the coverage waters. Hence the great questions from my alert reader “Confused.”

Keeping in mind the current scenario is more common these days than my dad's approach, “Confused” highlights some important issues. Let's review both the queries and his observations. For brevity, as well as following the intent of the email, all of the following solely addresses liability coverage. 

Related: Read another Amrhein column “Nothing to See Here.”

First, I think “Confused” nailed it, both with his recommendations and reasoning. Major kudos for noting the ISO PAP definition of “family member” goes beyond being “related to you by blood, marriage or adoption” to also require being a “resident of your household.” 

In any claim arising from husband's car, Exclusion B.2.b. in the wife's policy means the parent policy stands alone with no recourse to the wife's. Attaching the ISO PP 0306 Extended Non-Owned Endorsement (ENO) to the wife's policy addresses this problem (assuming all policies are ISO) by bringing the husband's car under his wife's policy as well as the parents'. As excess to parent policy (specified not in the endorsement but via the “Other Insurance” clause in the PAP), the ENO now provides a safety net in case of any issues or problems. 

Perhaps the newlyweds are correct that there is currently no problem with the parent coverage, but the simple fact remains that without the ENO any claims arising from the husband's car are only covered by the parent policy, so not only must all of those parent coverage ducks be in a row, they better stay that way. 

Related: Read the article “Defining Moment by Chris Amrhein.

My feeling is that given the newlyweds' answers to this point, it is unlikely “Confused” is going to convince them at this time that his parents could get older, suffer injury or death, have financial issues, or create any other possibility for causing coverage grief. Perhaps the best option, after assuring that all involved are clear as to the coverage implications of not taking any action (and the proper E&O disclaimers are initialed/signed), is to walk away. 

One additional action must be taken if possible: Review the parent policy to be certain it is standard ISO or at least contains no surprises. If “Confused” encounters resistance, perhaps he can present this as simply an opportunity to be sure his recommendations are the best possible. If the parent policy review confirms all is in line, then “Confused's” original ENO analysis is sound. As someone trying to establish credibility for future service, “Confused” doesn't want to appear to insult the husband's parents.

There is one additional issue “Confused” didn't raise that could be affected by leaving the husband's car on his parents' policy. If writing both the auto and home, a personal umbrella is definitely part of the conversation. As long as parent policy has the husband's car, with no ENO on the wife's policy it may be difficult or expensive to bring that car under a new umbrella written in the newlywed's names. 

If an umbrella is not to be part of the package at this point, perhaps the best “Confused” can hope for now is to focus on keeping the wife's auto coverage limits up to date and rely on the husband's parents to keep up their end of the bargain. As “Confused” gains credibility and the newlyweds become more comfortable financially and emotionally as a couple, a day may come when he wants his car off the parent policy and “Confused” will be there to make it happen.

And on that day, in Heaven, my dad will high-five the closest angel.