Question

1. lupe must replace her cars tires. why will her personal auto policys physical damage coverage (collision and other - than - collision coverage) cover this expense?

○ a. the tires were recalled by their manufacturer.
○ b. the treads wore out.
○ c. they were damaged by potholes.
○ d. vandals cut them.

1. before buying a motorcycle, luciano has the miscellaneous type vehicle endorsement added to his personal auto policy (pap), but he excludes the passenger hazard. how does this affect his coverage?

○ a. bodily injury to a passenger is covered to meet state requirements.
○ b. bodily injury to a passenger is excluded only when the passenger is in a sidecar.
○ c. bodily injury to a passenger is excluded.
○ d. there is no coverage for others property on the motorcycle.

Explanation:

1. Physical damage coverage (collision and other - than - collision) typically covers damage caused by external forces. Potholes are an external hazard that can damage tires, and this type of damage would fall under the physical damage coverage. Manufacturer recall (a) is a manufacturer - related issue, not covered by auto policy physical damage. Worn - out treads (b) are due to normal wear and tear, which is not covered. Vandalism (d) would fall under a different part of the policy (if covered), not physical damage for the reason of tire replacement in the context of the question.
2. When the passenger hazard is excluded in the miscellaneous type vehicle endorsement of a personal auto policy (PAP), it means that any bodily injury to a passenger is excluded. Option (a) is incorrect because excluding the passenger hazard overrides state requirements in this specific policy endorsement. Option (b) is wrong as the exclusion is not limited to side - car passengers. Option (d) is about property coverage for others, which is not related to the exclusion of passenger bodily injury.

Answer:

1. C. They were damaged by potholes.
2. C. Bodily injury to a passenger is excluded.