Which of the following statements about the SEF#44 - family protection endorsement is false?

The statement regarding the SEF#44 - family protection endorsement being unable to be used if the at-fault party is uninsured is not accurate. This endorsement is specifically designed to provide benefits to the insured and their family in cases where an accident involves an underinsured or uninsured at-fault party. Its primary purpose is to bridge the gap in coverage when the responsible party’s insurance limits are insufficient or nonexistent. Therefore, in situations where the at-fault party is completely uninsured, the endorsement can come into effect by providing additional protection to the insured.

In contrast, the other statements accurately reflect aspects of the SEF#44 endorsement. It indeed offers benefits not only to the named insured but also to others defined in the owner's policy when dealing with a responsible party who has insufficient coverage. Moreover, it correctly acknowledges that an at-fault third party may be underinsured and indicates that the coverage established by this endorsement corresponds to the difference between the limits of the third party’s policy and that of the owner's policy. This further illustrates the operational role of the endorsement in enhancing family protection against inadequately insured drivers.