...designed to reduce the burden on the insurer by giving it the right to receive the remainder of the set, which it can then sell for salvage.
Further support for a policy- holder’s entitlement to matching furniture coverage under the “pair and set” clause may be found in the limited case law addressing that clause.
Although there appear to be only four opinions that even men- tion the concept of “pair and set” coverage, none of which are di- rectly on point, the only case that is analogous supports the position set forth in this article. That case is Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Avon- dale Shipyards, Inc., Civ. A. Nos. 82-4034, 82-4185 and 82-4186, 1991 WL 329580 (E.D. La. Sept. 6, 1991).
Avondale Shipyards arose from the sinking of a tug boat. The tug was part of an integrated tug barge (“ITB”), which means that the tug and the barge it moved were con- nected so that they moved as a single unit. The tug, but not the barge, sunk. 1991 WL 329580 at *1. Because the entire “ITB was insured under a ‘pair and set’ clause...the loss of the OXY PRODUCER [the tug] resulted in the constructive total loss of the ITB under the relevant hull policies.” Id. In other words, the insurers were liable for the full value of the barge, even though it was not lost and presumably could be mated with another tug. Here, the un- damaged furniture is less useful than the tug, because by definition the undamaged furniture cannot be paired with identical furniture...