Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I am sure one could argue and your carrier might even say you were partially liable.

If you left the stuff overnight at a show in unlocked cases, no body bag and knowing the show did not provide security at night, I think your claim could be denied.

Same for leaving stuff in your room. If the hotel knows you are there for the card show and you leave the stuff out in the open knowing employees have access to the room and you leave for a long period of time, your claim could be denied.

Bottom line is that the most reasonable safeguards possible must be used when valuables are on or off premises. I do not feel leaving the box at the front desk, essentially that has 2 million worth of cards and a rep who is not going to be there for days, rises to the level of safeguarding.

No, that is incorrect. Any policyholder's duty of care in specific instances or any exclusions for not taking specific actions must be specified in the policy itself or the lack of specifics will go against the carrier. For example, my ACNA policy says this:

"We will not pay for “loss” or damage caused by or resulting from covered property being shipped by the insured via 1st class mail. However, items sent by any common carrier where a signature of receipt is required would not be subject to this exclusion."

If the carrier doesn't actually get a signature, the insurer cannot deny coverage if I shipped via a method that 'required' signature. The clause would have to state that the signature must be required and successfully obtained. I once had a case where the client's warehouse was burglarized and the insurer tried to deny the claim because the required alarm system was functional but not armed at the time of the break-in. The policy required that the insured have a functional alarm system but did not require that it be armed at the time of the incident or exclude coverage if the alarm system was not armed. Insurer ponied up once I pointed this out and threatened a bad faith case.

[Snapolit1]

Ambiguities in an insurance policy are construed against the drafter of the policy (i.e. the insurer) and in favor of coverage. Insurance Law 101.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, that is incorrect. Any policyholder's duty of care in specific instances or any exclusions for not taking specific actions must be specified in the policy itself or the lack of specifics will go against the carrier. I once had a case where the client's warehouse was burglarized and the insurer tried to deny the claim because the required alarm system was functional but not armed at the time of the break-in. The policy required that the insured have a functional alarm system but did not require that it be armed at the time of the incident or exclude coverage if the alarm system was not armed. Carrier lost.

[Exhibitman]

Yep. That's why insurance policies can be incredibly prolix and require that a coverage lawyer be a bit of a masochist to willingly read all that crap.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, that is incorrect. Any policyholder's duty of care in specific instances or any exclusions for not taking specific actions must be specified in the policy itself or the lack of specifics will go against the carrier. For example, my ACNA policy says this:

"We will not pay for “loss” or damage caused by or resulting from covered property being shipped by the insured via 1st class mail. However, items sent by any common carrier where a signature of receipt is required would not be subject to this exclusion."

If the carrier doesn't actually get a signature, the insurer cannot deny coverage if I shipped via a method that 'required' signature. The clause would have to state that the signature must be required and successfully obtained. I once had a case where the client's warehouse was burglarized and the insurer tried to deny the claim because the required alarm system was functional but not armed at the time of the break-in. The policy required that the insured have a functional alarm system but did not require that it be armed at the time of the incident or exclude coverage if the alarm system was not armed. Insurer ponied up once I pointed this out and threatened a bad faith case.

Very much appreciate the explanation. I assumed the burden would be on the insured so this is great to know. I have not taken insurance 101.

Adam, What is the insurer takes the position I was negligent by not taking steps to protect the valuables the best as I could while off premises and while in my possession? Does that language have to be included in the policy in order for them to deny a claim? I would think by my being irresponsible they could hold me at least partially liable for the loss or do they have to spell out that they will not cover the insured's negligence?