One of my jobs at the agency I’m with involves reviewing the current insurance programs for prospective clients. It’s interesting what one sees.<\/p>\n
For example, today I checked a policy for a building owned by an individual who leases it to a business. Pretty straightforward stuff – property coverage on the building, some loss of rents coverage and a pretty basic general liability policy.<\/p>\n
But, they also had an employee dishonesty section. This was not a throw-in, but rather a separately rated coverage section with an additional premium of over $500.<\/p>\n
The insured was an individual with no employees. What was meant to be covered by this endorsement? Employee dishonesty policies exclude the owners – no insurance company covers someone for stealing from themselves. And, there was no one who could steal from the owner who qualified as an “employee”.<\/p>\n
In short, over $500 down the drain.<\/p>\n
The moral? Just because an insurance coverage is available doesn’t mean you need it. Insurance policies need to be thoughtfully matched to the client.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of my jobs at the agency I’m with involves reviewing the current insurance programs for prospective clients. It’s interesting what one sees. For example, today I checked a policy for a building owned by an individual who leases it … Continue reading