Opinion ID: 2637500
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When a business owner acquires insurance in his or her trade name, coverage extends to the owner as well as to the business

Text: We first address the issue upon which the superior court based its decision: whether a policy issued to individuals or partners, d/b/a a partnership or trade name, covers the individuals as well as the business entity. Thus, the question is whether, assuming that the policy does name Walldow d/b/a Happy Puppy Enterprises as an insured, Walldow is an individual to whom family coverage extends. We have stated that a partnership is not a legal entity separate from its partners. [13] In the auto liability insurance context, various treatises have observed that where the policy names a partnership as the insured, coverage extends to the individuals comprising the partnership as well. For example, one treatise states: Where an automobile liability policy names a partnership as the insured and then lists the names of the individual partners in describing the named insured, the partners as individuals, as well as the partnership as an entity are covered. .... A policy purchased by an insured father in his trade name would be viewed as if issued in his given name, and references to the named insured in the policy would be deemed to refer to him individually.[ [14] ] Another observes: When a motor vehicle insurance policy is issued to a partnership, the courts have usually concluded that it is appropriate to extend coverage to family members of the partners. Similarly, when insuranceacquired by the owner of a businessis issued in the trade name of the owner, coverage claims by that individual's relatives have usually been sustained.[ [15] ] Other jurisdictions agree that when an insurance policy names individuals along with their trade names, coverage extends to those individuals as well as their businesses. For example, in O'Hanlon v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., the Third Circuit held that an insurance policy, which was issued in the insured's trade name and which agreed to cover the named insured's resident relatives, provided uninsured motorist coverage to the named insured's son. [16] In that case, O'Hanlon sought UIM coverage under the policy after his son suffered devastating injuries. [17] The policy agreed to cover the Named Insured... and, while residents of the same household, the ... relatives of [the Named Insured]. [18] The policy designated the named insured as Coe Management Company, the trade name under which O'Hanlon conducted business. [19] In determining whether the policy covered O'Hanlon's son's injuries, the Third Circuit stated that an insured's trade name and given name should be equated, and that where an insured purchases a policy in a trade name, the policy will be viewed as if issued in his given name. [20] The court also observed that [o]nce it is established that the named insured is Patrick J. O'Hanlon, the policy is unambiguous and plainly affords uninsured coverage to [O'Hanlon's son]. [21] And in Watson v. Agway Insurance Co., a New Jersey court stated that a trade name [is] nothing more than the alter ego of the individual. [22] Thus, a UIM policy that listed a partnership (and the individuals comprising it) as the named insured extended coverage to a partner's wifea family member of the named insured. [23] In the Watson case the policy language was identical to the language at issue here. It defined an insured in part as 1. You.