Question 28

A hit-and-run driver who strikes the insured's vehicle but cannot be identified

This scenario falls under the uninsured motorists section because it involves a driver who cannot be identified and thus does not have insurance coverage available to compensate for the damages caused.

A) A hit-and-run driver who strikes the insured's vehicle but cannot be identified

This option is correct as it directly relates to the definition of uninsured motorists coverage, which is designed to protect the insured in situations where the at-fault party is unknown or cannot be identified, such as in a hit-and-run incident.

B) A driver with a vehicle owned by a large company that has elected to self-insure rather than purchase insurance who strikes the insured's vehicle

This option is incorrect because the driver is associated with a company that has chosen to self-insure. In this case, the company is still responsible for the damages, meaning the driver is not considered uninsured under the personal automobile policy.

C) An insured driver driving a vehicle he does not own who strikes the insured's vehicle

This option is incorrect because the driver is insured, regardless of whether the vehicle being driven is owned by them. The uninsured motorists coverage is not applicable in this situation as the driver has coverage.

D) An insured's 15-year-old unlicensed son who steals the family car and strikes the insured's vehicle

This option is also incorrect because, although the son is unlicensed, he is a family member and the vehicle is insured under the family policy. The coverage would apply to the vehicle and not be considered an uninsured situation.

Conclusion

The correct answer is option A, as it exemplifies a typical scenario covered under uninsured motorists sections, where the at-fault party is not identifiable. Options B, C, and D all involve situations where either coverage exists or the drivers are not classified as uninsured, thereby failing to meet the criteria for this section of the policy.