August 13, 2012

I have a question with regard to False Pretense Coverage in a situation wherein the exposures of a parking garage or similar service risk for voluntary parting by trick to an unauthorized person are not covered by a garage policy. In this situation, the insurance coverages are provided by a general liability policy and a business auto policy with the garagekeepers endorsement. There is no exclusion for voluntary parting or false pretense under the comprehensive coverage provided by the GKLL endorsement as there is in the garage form. Is the intent to cover this exposure for these types of risks?

Connecticut Subscriber

Both the CGL form and the auto policy have the care, custody, or control exclusion, so if the insured has someone make off with a car that the insured has in its care, custody, or control, that exclusion will prevent coverage for the claim. The GKLL endorsement is meant to provide coverage under certain conditions for property damage to a customer's car while the insured has the car in his custody, but the lack of a false pretense exclusion in the GKLL endorsement will not prevent the care, custody, or control exclusion in other forms from being applicable to a claim such as this.

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis