| I have received a few very specific questions | | | | wanting to spend the additional premium. |
| regarding the implications of co-insurance in a Policy. I | | | | To the astonishment of all, a neigbouring unit in their |
| can cite a case I was involved in some years ago. | | | | Industrial Mall had a fire over the weekend, which |
| Co-insurance is a nasty little bit of fine print that | | | | apart from the smoke and fire fighting damage also |
| forms part of virtually every Insurance Policy, and, if | | | | caused the sprinklers to trigger in my Client's |
| not complied with, can leave you out of pocket for | | | | premises. The majority of their equipment was |
| substantials sums of money. | | | | destroyed, but smoke, fire and water damage are |
| The Insured's operations are engineering based - | | | | Insured Perils, so not to worry... |
| non-destructive materials testing. In other words, a | | | | When it came time to settle the claim, the Insurer |
| customer would provide them parts or completed | | | | quite rightly applied the Co-Insurance Factor. Insured |
| products, and have them apply specific tests to see | | | | Values should have been at least $990,000 ($1.1 |
| if the product held up as it should. For example, they | | | | million x 90%) but instead were $280,000. And here |
| might repeatedly heat and cool a part to determine if | | | | is how this ugly clause works. Divide the amount of |
| a coating was going to perform satisfactorily in the | | | | Insurance you did have at the time of loss by the |
| real world. | | | | amount you should have had. In this case, the |
| The equipment in the shop was very high tech, | | | | Property Values were only insured to roughly 28% of |
| needless to say. | | | | what they should have been. |
| I should also add that I inherited the file upon joining | | | | The total amount claimed was reduced by 72%. The |
| the Firm I am at. My practice was, and still is, to visit | | | | uninsured portion of the loss was close to $750,000, |
| any Client and inspect the property and operations to | | | | borne out of pocket by the Policy Holder. |
| make sure the Policy is appropriate. I did so, and | | | | They managed (one wonders how!) to stay in |
| noted that the limit for Property Insurance - which | | | | business, and I managed (equally surprising) to retain |
| includes equipment - was very low when total values | | | | them as Clients to this day. |
| were taken into consideration. In round figures, | | | | Needless to say the Policy Limits are now carefully |
| Insured values should have been around $1.1 million. | | | | and regularly reviewed by all, and the principle of |
| What showed on the Policy was $280,000. I quickly | | | | 'Insurance to Value' is carefully applied. |
| made written recommendations to increase the | | | | The moral to this story? You should carefully consider |
| property limits to at least the 90% factor (typical | | | | the total values of all property, and make certain to |
| co-insurance requirement). | | | | Insure fully - or be exposed to the same kind of |
| The client adopted a wait and see approach, not | | | | potentially disastrous loss as my Client experienced. |