Re: Additional Insured or Named Insured
Go to Top
I would ask the attorney why he wants it setup this way. A lot (most?) insurance companies won't write a trust as a named insured, since it has no way to verify loss histories or rating factors, i.e., risk.
Listing a trust as an additional insured protects it against physical loss, but leaves the liability coverage for the person who lives in the house (presumably a trustee). This way, if a dog, who is not part of the trust, but lives in the house, bites a visitor, the 'named insured' is covered. If the trust was the named insured, the dog would not belong to the trust, and therefore, would not be covered. (change the scenario as you see fit).
Realistically, in my view, the trust should have a landlord policy, with the person living in the house carring a renters policy. This would provide the best protection, and appropriately establish the relationship of the tenant to the trust. I've never seen one setup this way though.
Dan
|