CISR Personal Auto study materials
CISR Personal Auto study resources

The Roommate's Jeep and the Delivery Gig

CISR Personal Auto · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

The Roommate's Jeep and the Delivery Gig

The Barretts' PAP lists a 2019 Subaru Outback and a 2016 Ford F-150 at 250/500/100 liability limits. Their daughter Maya, 19, is a full-time student who keeps the Outback with her in a dormitory 300 miles from home; the Barretts never told the insurer that the garaging address changed. On a Saturday, Maya's roommate Kayla handed her the keys to a Jeep registered to Kayla's parents, saying, 'My folks never drive it, take it.' Kayla's parents had in fact told her not to lend the Jeep to anyone. Maya backed it into a parked car, causing $9,000 in damage and a minor injury to a bystander. Separately, Maya has been running food-delivery orders in the Outback three evenings a week for about $60 a night; last week she rear-ended a bus while a delivery was in progress. The Barretts want to know which of these losses their policy will answer for.

1. Maya was driving a vehicle she did not own and did not have the owner's actual permission to use. Is she an insured under the Barretts' PAP for the Jeep accident, and how do the two policies share the loss?

Read the worked answer

Maya is a family member, meaning a relative who is a resident of the household, and a full-time student in a dormitory is ordinarily still treated as resident because she intends to return home. Part A insures a family member for the use of any auto, so the Barretts' policy reaches her. The missing permission does not automatically defeat coverage: the PAP applies a reasonable-belief standard, and a roommate handing over keys creates exactly that appearance of authority, even though the actual owners had forbidden the loan. The two policies are sequenced by the other-insurance condition. For an auto the insured does not own, the PAP pays excess over any other collectible liability insurance, so Kayla's parents' policy is primary because it insures the owner's vehicle, while the Barretts' policy sits behind it. If the owners' insurer attempted to deny on the ground of unauthorized use, the Barretts' excess coverage and the driver's reasonable belief become the operative facts.

2. Does the Barretts' policy respond to the bus collision that happened during a food delivery? Separate liability from physical damage.

Read the worked answer

Split the answer by coverage part. Part A excludes liability for any vehicle used to carry persons or property for a fee, carving out only share-the-expense car pools, so the delivery run takes the bus claim outside liability coverage. Part D is drafted differently: its business-use exclusion is limited to use as a public or livery conveyance, which ordinarily means carrying passengers for hire rather than hauling takeout, so the Outback's own collision damage is probably still covered subject to the collision deductible on the Declarations. Do not stop at the form language. Undisclosed commercial use is a material change in risk, and carriers commonly non-renew or require a business-use endorsement once they learn of it. Advise the insured that the third-party bus claim and the first-party damage claim travel on different tracks and should be reported separately.

3. What effect does the unreported college garaging address have on coverage for these losses?

Read the worked answer

Coverage is not lost. 'Your covered auto' is fixed by ownership and by listing on the Declarations, not by where the car sleeps, so the Outback remains a covered auto while Maya keeps it at school. What changes is rating and, potentially, which state's financial responsibility requirements govern the vehicle: a car garaged in another state for most of the year usually must satisfy that state's minimum limits, and the carrier is entitled to re-rate the risk. The insured's duty is prompt notice of the change. An unreported garaging change is a rating misrepresentation, and if it is material the carrier may adjust premium, non-renew, or in an extreme case rescind the policy. In practice the exposure here is a premium adjustment, not a denial of the Jeep claim or the bus claim, provided the Barretts cooperate and disclose the facts now.