| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | Oct » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
- Adoption (2)
- Business Law (10)
- Child Advocacy (5)
- Constitutional Law (8)
- Criminal Law (15)
- EDAD 6050/7050 (1)
- Freedom of Religion (6)
- Freedom of Speech (6)
- General Law (15)
- Gun Law (2)
- Immigration (1)
- Injury Law (34)
- Insurance Law (28)
- Insurance Practices (19)
- Juvenile (2)
- Litigation (22)
- Negotiations (5)
- Right To Life (6)
- You've got to be kidding! (3)
- January 11, 2012: If the State cheats, they should lose.
- January 11, 2012: The hiring and firing of "ministers" - Hosanna-Tabor v/ EEOC
- December 1, 2011: Tennessee Gun Laws
- August 24, 2011: Dealing with insurance companies.
- February 9, 2011: Tennessee sticks close to the insurance policy wording.
- January 16, 2011: Church Planting
- December 29, 2010: Child Custody and a "Material Change"
- October 31, 2010: Thankful
- May 2, 2010: Issues with sex?
- April 23, 2010: Is the National Day of Prayer Constitutional?
Blogs
Other Web Sites
- January 2012
- December 2011
- August 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
Use your personal vehicle for business use?
Be careful if you do. Here’s a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case where Farmers asserted an exclusion against one of their policyholders.
Everyday individuals trying to make a living use their personal automobiles to conduct business. Often, this is encouraged by their employers. Its good for those individuals to check their insurance policy to make sure their business activities are covered.
It seems to be a fairly rare instance where the insurer for a personal auto policy asserts this type of business use exclusion, since they are usually fairly narrow exclusions. The point of the exclusion is for the vehicle owner to get a commercial auto policy, which is designed for business use vehicle.
In this instance, the exclusion stated: “[w]hile used in employment by any person whose primary duties are the delivery of products or services[.]” Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed with Farmers on this one and the policyholder was out of luck.