As insurance professionals, ours is a business in which being specific is desirable. Usually it is in everyone’s best interest to make sure that a property insurance policy is specific as to the insureds and to the type of property being insured. Sometimes, though, being too specific in these areas can actually remove coverage.
A case in point happened several years ago when an insured corporation was unable to recover a substantial portion of lost property because they could not prove that they had an insurable interest in the property. Their inability to provide proof was directly related to the way in which the insured was named and described in the policy. They were further hampered because the property description was not broad enough to indicate a relationship between the insured and the lost property.
In an industry driven by details, can less ever be more? It can when it means using fewer specifics in defining coverages. An interesting discussion of how employing broader language in a policy can ultimately serve the insured’s best interest leads off this issue of Adjusting Today.
Our second article examines claims involving replacement cost coverage, including the special considerations that must be applied in these situations if the coverage is to work as intended.
It’s reading you will find to be interesting, informative and practical!
Sheila E. Salvatore Editor