The Roommate, the Reno Dorm, and Whose Policy Is Primary

On the Castillo PAP. The liability definition of "insured" includes any person using your covered auto. Priya was using an owned, scheduled vehicle. The operative qualifier is permission: the form excludes use without a reasonable belief of entitlement, and Priya plainly had Elena's permission for a personal errand. Under most PAP language the first permittee's permission is enough, so Priya is an insured for this loss.

Watch the exception. A minority of forms condition coverage on permission from the named insured. If this policy's "who is an insured" provision says permission must come from "you," the answer for Priya flips. Read the actual form - this is the single fact that controls.

On Priya's own policy. She is a named insured there, and her PAP covers her use of a non-owned auto - but on an excess basis over the coverage on the vehicle itself. Her policy is not the first dollar of defense or indemnity for this accident.

Bottom line: Priya is likely an insured on the Castillo policy, and her own carrier's tender of $25,000 as primary is legally premature.

Order of payment - the other-insurance clauses decide it.

• Castillo PAP: for a covered auto you own, coverage is primary.
• Priya's PAP: for a non-owned auto, coverage is excess.

So the Castillo policy responds first, and Priya's policy sits behind it.

**The math.**Pedestrian damages: $140,000. Castillo limits: $250,000 per person. $140,000 falls well inside the limit.

• Castillo carrier pays the $140,000 (subject to any comparative-fault reduction under Nevada's modified comparative rules).
• Priya's carrier owes $0 - its excess layer is never triggered because the primary limits were not exhausted. Its tender was mistaken; return it.

What would change the answer. If the Castillo limits had been Nevada's 25/50 minimums, the Castillo carrier would pay $25,000 and Priya's policy would drop down as excess and pay the next $25,000, leaving the pedestrian to pursue the Castillos personally above that.

One more layer the file ignores. Elena and Mr. Castillo face a negligent-entrustment claim, which is also covered under the Castillo PAP - and it shares the same per-accident limit. Confirm the limits are not being eroded twice before closing.

Garaging at school - an underwriting problem, not a coverage problem. The sedan is owned by the named insured, so it remains a covered auto wherever Elena parks it. The policy does not say coverage depends on the garaging address. The real exposure is rating: the risk was priced for the family home rather than Reno. The insurer's remedy is prospective - re-rate or non-renew at renewal - and only if the misrepresentation was material and knowing would rescission even be on the table, which is a high bar in Nevada and rarely worth pursuing on these facts. Tell the insured to report the address change in writing now and correct the declarations.

Delivery for pay - that changes everything. Standard PAPs exclude use of a vehicle to carry persons or property for a fee, and the livery/public-conveyance exclusion applies to every insured, including a permissive user. If Priya had been running food deliveries:

• The Castillo carrier denies and owes no defense to Priya.
• Priya's own policy has the same exclusion.
• The pedestrian is left chasing Priya personally.

Here the trip was a personal grocery run, so the exclusion never engages. Confirm the purpose of the trip in the recorded statement - it is the fact that decides the file.