I agree, but by going this route I can comply with their regs. I had State Farm. They wouldn't add a rider to the policy that would cover any heavy equipment that I rented like the rental company required. They kept jacking up the rates and lowering the amount of coverage. The equipment thing "we're not in the business to insure equipment" and them dropping coverage on the outbuildings "we are in the home and auto business, not insuring farm buildings" was the last straw. Their insurance rates more than doubled in the 12 years that I owned this place, and thats without having any type of insurance claim, home or auto.
Scott, I was going to reply in a PM but thought others might get an understanding of how some insurers differentiate between personal and business (related) policies. And as a disclaimer, each state differs on how each company is filed with their state dept. of insurance, so I can only speak of NE and my experience with State Farm (27 years in the business for me and my dad's been an agent with SF for over 52 years). BTW, I have my own issues with SF (rates, practices, etc.) as I'm sure we all do with each company we work for and/or represent, so please feel free to moderate this if you feel it in any way comes across as promotional!
On any detached structure, if it is in any way used for business (business or commercial exposure) it is excluded from coverage under a personal homeowners policy (with limited exceptions). Even if an attached garage has an ineligible business exposure, the home would not be insurable either. An unfortunate situation I've been in too many times! But if the business or commercial exposure (including buildings) is eligible for coverage with SF, the detached structure, it's contents, as well as commercial liability would be covered under that respective policy (or policies), likely including equipment rental up to $50k.
If the risk is one that SF cannot offer coverage on or insure (and there are many that SF cannot write for various reasons such as risk, claims experience, the way they're filed, etc.), and aquaculture or fish-farm may be one of those, then none of the detached structures or business property would be eligible for coverage.
I'm going out on a limb a little here, but for an agent or agent's office representative to say or insinuate "they wouldn't add a rider", "we're not in the business to insure equipment" and "we are in the home and auto business, not insuring farm buildings", would be a false and/or inaccurate statement to make and I apologize it was related to you in that way, regardless of what company that agency represents. There should have been a much better way to relate what they could or could not write/insure with an explanation as to why. Instead, the way it was related to you does nothing (I'm guessing) but give you a bad taste about an individual company, it's representative(s) and possibly the industry as a whole which is already one that few people understand, and love to hate (insurance, which many regard as a necessary evil).
What I'd like to relay here is for all of us to be sure we've fully explained our individual situations to our insurance agent, not only so they understand what risks and exposures we each have, but to eliminate any surprises ("sorry, that's not covered") down the road. And ask for explanations and clarifications and make them accountable for accurate answers! If they're so sure of their answer, will they put in on paper? I have over 70 insurance products that I will never claim to be an expert on or know the ins and outs of each. But feel an incredible level of responsibility to my poliyholder's to know about their exposures and advise accordingly. They should be counting on me for that!
I apologize for the length of this and offer every disclaimer for the CYA issue, but have we all explained to our agent (as it appears Scott has) exactly what we have, own and do to be sure we have the appropriate coverages? And if you EVER get the sense that your agent is not looking out for YOUR best interests, find a new agent!
And back to the chickens and the eggs because I know insurance is such an exciting subject
, would we be liable if we sold someone a bad egg? (that can be taken metaphorically as well
)
