HOUSEHOLD POLICIES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 391, 27 June 1928, Page 6

HOUSEHOLD POLICIES

CLAIMS UNDER “ALL-IN” INSURANCE

SOME INTERESTING POINTS

It may be of interest and possibly amusing to readers to consider the numerous ways in which losses to houses and goods and chattels can be suffered, and how far these are j covered by the normal “Household” or “All-in” or “Comprehen- j sive” policy. Many people who hold such policies imagine they “cover everything,” but receive a rude shock if and when a loss occurs which is outside the scope of the insurance. The writer cannot vouch for the truth of the following, but it is rumoured that once upon a time a certain clever individual, having bought and smoked a box of expensive cigars, promptly sent in a claim to his insurance company for the cost of them, pointing out that his policy insured the contents of his house .against fire! Strangely enough, the insurance company is reputed to have paid the claim by return of post, but only after seeing that proceedings for arson were instituted. To turn to more common sources of loss and claims, it is generally found that insurance companies will take a broad view of their liabilities, but it is interesting to know that under the fire section of a policy, no liability attaches, generally speaking, unless there is actual ignition. Claims are frequently made (and paid) on account of articles scorched when being dried before a fire or owing to a “live” electric iron being allowed to stand. The writer has known a case resulting from the latter where an iron burnt its way successively through several articles of clothing, an ironing board and blanket, a table top and linoleum on the floor. There is, strictly speaking, no liability upon the insurance company for losses such as these, and as regards articles scorched before a. fire, few people will know that the policies of most insurance companies contain a condition to the effect that they do not cover loss or damage to any property due to its undergoing any process involving the application of Are heat. Most insurance companies, however, very wisely consider that satisfied policy-holders are their best advertisement, and do not generally seek the protection of their various clauses and conditions. As regards claims for articles accidentally thrown into the fire a divergence of view appears to exist. Some insurance companies consider that as the damage occurs within the proper confines of a fire used for heating a room, and as the loss is probably caused by carelessness of the individual, no claim can be upheld. Other companies contend that such claims are admissible on the ground that the loss is fortuitous. The position w T hen articles accidentally fall into the fire is entirely different, and this in practice is a very fruitful source of claims and loss to the insurance companies, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the articles when so damaged are “undergoing a process involving the application of artificial heat” —that is, drying, which, as previously pointed out, allows the company to disclaim liability. It is sometimes exceedingly awkward to settle claims on an article forming part of a set. For instance, it often happens that a man thrusts his pipe into his coat pocket without assuring himself that it is “out” and shortly afterwards a smell of burning is noticed. A frantic and hurried search is made and a hole is discovered in the coat. Frequently such holes are small enough to be repaired by the invisible mending process, in which case everyone is satisfied. But on the other

hand the damage is sometimes sufficient to enable one to say quite truthfully that the suit is ruined, but that does not entitle the unfortunate claimant to the price of a new suit. In the first place the suit at the time of the loss might not have been in the first bloom of youth, and secondly there is the value of the salvage to be considered. The value of