More On 'Fishy' Claim
To The Editor:
Upon reading "The FC&S Answer" column by Bruce Hillman published in your April 29 edition ("The Case Of The Disappeared Sign," page 20), I was confused by his coverage analysis, but resisted writing a reply, thinking the issue was too insignificant to bother. (The claim at issue involved an old sign for a fish restaurant that was stolen after being taken down and replaced with a new sign for the restaurant when it became a steakhouse.)
However, when I read the response by fellow reader Eric Wiening on May 13 ("Coverage Smells Fishy," page 24), I was overwhelmingly compelled to respond. I am concerned that both gentlemen may have "missed the boat" when it comes to coverage and value of the disappeared property.
Although touching upon the possibility of the fish placard being treated as business personal property once it was effectively discontinued as a "sign," it appears both Mr. Hillman and Mr. Wiening failed to comprehend, and act accordingly on, the following pertinent facts:
The decision by the insured to no longer treat the fish placard as a "sign" was made a considerable time prior to the time of the disappearance–when the replacement "steak" placard was ordered.
The very second the fish placard was removed from the sign housing, it was no longer a "sign."
Even though the fish placard was being retired from use as a "sign," it apparently had considerable alternative use, and value, to the insured owner as a claim for damage was subsequently made.
Many restaurants decorate and create an atmosphere by use of old memorabilia, especially one of a historical business attachment as this article would portray, which means the insured may have been intending an alternative use inside his/her own establishment or to sell the article to another.
Last, but not least, the very fact that some unknown party felt the article was of sufficient value to be worth stealing should attest to the importance and value of the continued ownership by the insured.
Therefore, dependent upon the investigative facts developed from the insured and other parties of interest demonstrating the intended future use and corresponding residual value of the historical fish placard, the standard commercial property policy would extend coverage under the business personal property item, up to the limits of the policy. In fact, the article could be construed as having a significant value, such as an antique.
The lesson I hope this response conveys is that as professionals in the insurance industry, whether that be as an adjuster, attorney or respected resource, we always need to look at the facts and circumstances of any loss situation and think "outside of the box" before summarily dismissing an insureds claim. My vote is that the insurer owes the claim and it may well be a significant loss!
Victor Beard
President
Property Adjustments, Ltd.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Reproduced from National Underwriter Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, June 17, 2002. Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.