Originally Posted by
Seattle Forrest
This seems very dubious to me. I predict that if a cyclist were to try and use any of that million dollars of liability insurance to cover themselves for a cycling accident - for example, the guy in Renton who killed the old lady on the Cedar River Trail - the insurance company would refuse to pay. I very much doubt that any renter's or home owner's policy will cover liability from a bike accident that happened outside the home. ( Among many reasons, I suspect that if I were wrong here, drivers would be doing the same thing instead of carrying specialized driving insurance... )
Personal liability coverage provided by homeowner's and renter's insurance often extends beyond the home. If you wreck someone else while skiing, for example, your homeowner's insurance will generally cover it. Insurance companies seem to accept that there are a number of gaps in the insurance net, and so allow homeowner's and renter's insurance to fill those liability gaps for low risk (for third party property and personal damage) activities like cycling and skiing. Autos require their own insurance because the risk of causing significant damage is high.
Obviously, you should check with your insurance provider and not just assume that you're covered. Most will happily accept an extension of your existing coverage to a low risk activity like cycling if it means keeping you as a customer; they will also happily deny payment on activities that haven't been explicitly outlined in your coverage beforehand, should an incident occur. Also, from what I understand, personal liability won't cover your medical costs, so you probably should still roll with health insurance.