INSURANCE OF VALUABLES [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.1 SIR,—S0
few people either read or .understand their policies of insurance that I think it may be useful to call the attention of persons insuring jewellery or other valuables to an unde- sirable practice which seems to have become prevalent. The usual course is to have such articles separately valued and for the agreed value to be inserted in the policy. But in many of these policies there will also be found a clause giving the underwriters the option of replacing, any article which may be lost. When * loss._ occurs, although the claim is indisputable, an attempt is made to force the assured to replace the lost article by purchases from some particular firm, presumably with the object of obtaining from such firm a handsome discount or - commission which goes into the pockets of the insurers. There is no justification for such a procedure, and it obviously puts the assured to great inconvenience, because it is unlikely that a person who has lost valuables would desire immediately to replace them, and still more unlikely that he or she would desire to replace them through one particular firm. Moreover, it is obvious that such an arrangement opens the door to dishonesty. For this reason any person who is insuring valuables upon agreed figures should refuse to accept any policy containing a replacement clause, and any person who has insured under such a policy should refuse to renew until that clause is
Previous page
