We have a homeowner who wants to stay with her son for a couple of months and then fly down to her daughter's house for a couple of months until her house is fixed from a water loss.

 Both children rent their homes. The children each rent a home from a landlord and there is no one else living there. Since having the mom staying with them will increase utilities and create an inconvenience, can the insurance company compensate the children?

 Can they still be compensated for rent from the insurance company if they don't own their home and the insured stays there?

Indiana Subscriber

 Who's paying the bills? ALE is for increase in expenses for the insured over and above their normal expenses. If mom's utilities stop, then there's no additional living expense involved. If mom is paying her normal utility fee she'd have to be able to prove she's paying the kid's increase in utilities, and they'd have to document what that actual increase in utilities is. The kids' inconvenience is their problem, not the carrier's. It's cheaper to put mom with them instead of a hotel, but being an inconvenience to the kids is not compensable. Either they do it for love or not, but not for insurance company money. ALE is for the insured's additional expenses, not the kids' aggravation.

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