Indemnity is very logical and technically easy to
defend. However, in practice, most policyholders are ignorant of this and are
confused and offended when insurers ‘reduce’ their claims, by deducting
depreciation, wear and tear, etc. As a marketing or public relations exercise,
insurers sometimes offer or agree to grant property insurances which may be said
to give a commercial rather than a strict indemnity. Some
examples are as follows:
(a) Reinstatement insurances (or insurances on a
reinstatement basis): This is one of the several uses of the term
‘reinstatement’ (see 3.4.4(d) above) and is often found with fire and
commercial ‘all-risks’ insurances. The meaning is that where reinstatement
takes place after a loss, no deductions are made from claim payments in respect
of wear and tear, depreciation, etc.
(b) ‘New for Old’ cover: Again, this means that no
deductions are made in respect of wear and tear, deprecation, etc. This term is
more generally used with household and marine hull policies.
(c) Agreed value policies (or valued policies):
Such policies may be used for articles of high value, where depreciation is
unlikely to be a factor (e.g. works of art, jewellery, etc.) or where property
valuation contains a rather subjective element. The sum insured is fixed on the
basis of an expert's valuation, and agreed between the insured and the insurer
as representing the value at risk of the property throughout the
currency of the policy. In non-marine insurance, a valued policy undertakes to
pay this sum in the event of a total loss, without regard to the actual value
at the time of loss, whereas in the event of a partial loss, the actual amount
of loss would instead be payable without regard to the agreed value.
(d) Marine policies: Almost without exception,
marine hull and marine cargo policies are written on a valued basis, and the
agreed value will be taken as the actual value at the time of loss for the
purposes of both partial and total loss claims.
The Practical Problems with Indemnity
Indemnity, as mentioned above, is extremely
logical. What makes more sense than to say that a person should only recover
what he has lost? He should not profit from a loss! However, most people
feel that they should receive the amount they have insured for, with a total
loss. Moreover, the fact or amount of depreciation is an area where you,
or the claims handler, may definitely expect problems with the claimant. When
claims are being made, a lot of claimants will say that their property has not
depreciated at all, or only marginally!
0 comments:
Post a Comment