The College Car, the Roommate, and Two Auto Policies
Nadia, age 19, is a full-time student at CU Boulder. Her parents, who live in Colorado Springs, own and insure the 2019 sedan she drives; the policy is a personal auto policy written in Colorado with 100/300/50 liability limits, a $500 collision deductible, and medical payments coverage. The parents told the agent the car is garaged in Colorado Springs, but it has been kept in Boulder since August. Nadia lets her roommate Priya drive the sedan to the store; Priya, who is not a family member and lives in the dorm, runs a red light and injures a third party. The injury claim is $45,000. Priya has her own auto policy with 25/50 limits, and the sedan is listed on her policy as a non-owned auto.
1. Is Priya an insured under the parents' policy, and which policy pays first?
Read the worked answer
Priya is insured under the parents' policy, but the parents' policy is primary.
- Permissive use. The PAP's definition of "insured" includes any person using the covered auto with a reasonable belief that they are entitled to do so. Nadia, a family member, gave permission, so Priya qualifies.
- Priority of payment. The "other insurance" provision makes coverage under the parents' policy primary because it insures the owned vehicle involved in the loss. Priya's own policy covers her use of a non-owned auto, and that coverage is excess by its terms.
- Practical result: the parents' carrier pays the $45,000 within the 100/300 limits and then looks to Priya's carrier for reimbursement of the excess portion; because the parents' limits are adequate, Priya's 25/50 limits are not reached first.
- Warning: if the parents' carrier had denied permission (for example, an excluded driver or a household exclusion), Priya's policy would drop to primary with far lower limits, exposing her personally for any excess.
2. The parents disclosed Colorado Springs garaging while the car sits in Boulder. How does that affect this claim and the policy going forward?
Read the worked answer
Treat the two questions separately.
- This claim. An innocent misstatement about garaging location does not void coverage for a loss that arose from a risk the policy intended to insure. The insurer must still respond. Rescission requires a material misrepresentation made with intent to deceive, and the burden is on the insurer.
- The rating exposure. Garaging location is a rating variable because theft, vandalism, and claim frequency differ by territory. The insurer may re-rate prospectively, charge additional premium, or non-renew at the next term if the rules permit - but it cannot retroactively rewrite the policy as a penalty.
- If the misstatement was intentional, the insurer may have grounds for rescission or a claim denial, but that is a high bar and a fact question, not a certainty. The producer should correct the record in writing now, and document that the correction was voluntary.
- Related gap: the policy declarations should also address Nadia as a rated driver if she is a regular operator, which is a separate underwriting issue from the garaging address.
3. The third party sues for $45,000 in bodily injury and $20,000 in lost wages. Trace how the claim would be handled if the parents' policy had instead carried Colorado's minimum required liability limits.
Read the worked answer
The allocation changes entirely, and the numbers show why limits are a design decision.
- Minimum limits in Colorado are 25/50/15 for bodily injury per person/per occurrence and property damage. A $45,000 bodily injury claim exceeds the $25,000 per-person limit by $20,000.
- Lost wages are part of the bodily injury damages, not a separate bucket. They share the same per-person limit and are not paid in addition to it.
- Order of payment: the parents' primary policy pays its $25,000 per-person limit, then Priya's policy responds as excess - but Priya's policy is also a 25/50 policy, so it pays the next $20,000. Priya is then personally exposed for any remaining judgment, and the parents may face exposure under negligent entrustment theories.
- Takeaway: the analysis is not "does coverage exist" but "which layer absorbs the claim." With 100/300 limits the claim is closed within the first policy; at minimum limits it spills into a second policy and then onto the driver personally.