Here are the questions I'd ask my agent if, as in your case, adding the wife reduced premiums:
(1) if wife IS an insured and is injured while on the back of my bike, do her claims get paid by my liability coverage?
(2) if wife IS NOT an insured and is injured while on the back of my bike, do her claims get paid by my liability coverage?
(3) can you show me the language in the policy that answers that concern?
(4) does adding wife as an insured result in ANY difference in coverage?
(5) if no to 4, then will you please put that in writing?
I know that if I'm injured on my insured bike, I can't use the personal liability coverage of my policy to cover my medical expenses, wage loss, etc. But my pillion GF can make a claim for injuries she sustained as a result of my negligent riding and get paid under my PL coverage. Insurance policies do use "named insureds" and others defined as "insureds" to define who gets what under the policy. For example, one must be an "insured" to avail oneself of the uninsured motorist coverage. The reliable answer would be found in the policy itself.
It's been quite a while since I've regularly reviewed policies as a part of making a living, but there's just something that sticks in the back of my mind about using "insureds" as a basis for limiting coverage (as well as providing it) -- like your ability to be covered under the liability provisions. That you get the "same coverage" at a lower premium would make me wary enough to check further to be certain. It may be so, or it may be that as a member of the household, your wife is already defined as an "insured" even when not listed as a "named insured", but I'd want the above questions answered and verified by reference to the policy language.
