Every once in awhile, the FC&S editors get a question from one of our subscribers that has no apparent answer. An example of this is a question that pertains to the garagekeepers' (GKLL) coverage: under GKLL coverage, would damage to a customer's car from a falling object be a collision loss or an other-than-collision (comprehensive) loss?

The BAP declares that, if the insured carries comprehensive coverage, it pays for loss caused by a falling object. The PAP lists loss caused by a falling object as an other-than-collision loss. And even the garage physical damage coverage states that loss caused by a falling object is a comprehensive loss.

However, an examination of the GKLL language finds no mention of loss by a falling object. So, if the insured has a customer's car in his repair shop and the garage door assembly falls onto the car causing damage to the car's roof, is this a collision loss or a comprehensive loss?

Read More FC&S Blog Posts at the Coverage Cafe!

There is no doubt that there has been an impact between the car and another object—the traditional definition of collision. If such a loss were to be considered an other-than-collision loss, why does the GKLL language ignore this possibility, unlike other policies? Furthermore, is it reasonable to think that the GKLL coverage defines damage from a falling object as a collision loss? I don't think so.

I hold that it is just as reasonable to think that since all of the other physical damage loss sections in other policies consider falling objects to be an other-than-collision loss, why would GKLL treat such a loss differently? If the insurer wanted a falling object loss to be covered as a collision loss, why isn't that spelled out clearly in the policy language?

At the very least, the language in the GKLL coverage insuring agreement creates an ambiguity in coverage that should be interpreted in favor of the insured. Since the insured would normally have a lower deductible applied to a comprehensive loss as opposed to a collision loss, why shouldn't the insured get the benefit of more coverage based on a reasonable doubt in the interpretation of the policy language?

Some adjusters may cover falling object losses as a collision loss under GKLL, and others may pay for the loss as a comprehensive loss. I favor the comprehensive way, but that is just my opinion. I would be very interested in hearing from our readers as to how they handle such losses.

Leave your comments below.

This blog post is meant to provide insights into insurance coverage issues in general, and does not necessarily account for the differences in law and practice in different venues. As such, the opinions expressed within should not be construed as legal advice for the unique circumstances of any particular claim or suit.