In a message dated 8/10/2005 10:04:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dan@xxxxxxxxx writes:
I just had a claim for a group of three vintage mics I left in hire car
(still kicking myself for doing it in the first place).
There generally is not a "dummy exclusion" on insurance policies. {8^)
The insurance
settled based on current used prices but then depreciated them by 50%. A
couple of phone calls later and my claims adjuster sent the balance for the
current used prices. I guess I was lucky this time.
Bill do US insurers have new for old policies?
Different companies handle it differently. The choices usually are: 1)
Replacement cost or 2) Actual Cash Value. Replacement Cost is generally
viewed
as "new for old" and Actual Cash Value is as it is stated "Actual Cash Value"
which is generally seen as a depreciated amount. This is a bigger
conversation than I will have here, however lets take one of our favorites as
an
example of an ACV settlement. Lets say you have your 40mm f2 Zuiko stolen.
It is
a used lens, isn't it? What are you going to replace it with? That's right,
another used lens, so in this example is ACV not essentially the same as
Replacement Cost? For the type of OM stuff we use ACV does the job. I'm
assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that policies are written at ACV on your side
of the
pond. My argument would be that Replacement Cost and ACV on obsolete
equipment are basically the same coverage.
Now, lets look at the e-1 and related gear. Do I need to pay premium for
the amount I paid for it when it was new? It no longer costs what I paid when
it was new, why would I want to pay the additional premium? If something
happens to my e-1 stuff, I will try to replace it with another used item of
the
same condition or perhaps, in the case of a body upgrade to a newer model.
Bill Barber
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|