A policyholder borrowed an insured's fishing pole. While in the insured's care, custody or control, the fishing pole was stolen. The value of the fishing pole is less than the policyholder's first party deductible. Section II of the policy contains an additional coverage "Damage to Property of Others". 3. Damage to Property of Others a. "We" will pay, at replacement cost, up to $15,000 per "occurrence" for "property damage" to property of others caused by an "insured". b. "We" will not pay for "property damage": (1) To property covered under Section I of this policy; (2) To real property rented to an "insured"; (3) To property owned by an "insured", a tenant of an "insured", or a resident in "your" household; (4) To a recreational vehicle such as a snowmobile, golf cart, camper, motor home or similar vehicle, or farm machinery or equipment, rented, leased or borrowed by an "insured"; or (5) Arising out of: (a) A "business" engaged in by an "insured"; (b) Any act or omission in connection with a premises owned, rented or controlled by an "insured", other than the "insured location"; or (c) The ownership, maintenance, occupancy, operation, use, loading or unloading of "aircraft", "hovercraft", watercraft or "motor vehicles".
Do you believe this Section II Liability Additional Coverage would pay for the stolen fishing pole?
Ohio Subscriber
Technically the property is covered under section I, it's just that it's not worth more than the deductible. Therefore the exclusion for property covered under section I would apply. If the insured had a lower deductible the pole would be covered. The coverage exists, it's just that the insured decided to have a larger deductible and assume more of property losses up front.