insure a dress to be stored elsewhere???

Dangermac

vaio wrote: »

Although it suits your argument I'm not sure that your "formally agreed to take responsibility for their safekeeping" can be read into the DL "for which you are responsible".

What does "formally agreed" mean? Contract? Does not "informal agreement" also qualify? How about common law tortuous duty of care?

If I borrow something off you then I am responsible for its safekeeping whilst I have it and would expect my insurer to cover it as if it was mine.

Common law tortous duty of care does not equate to responsibility for goods in your care.

There are shades of gray with everything in life, however, the mere presence of something in your home does not automatically make you responsible for it.

Yes, we owe a duty of care to our 'neighbour' (as in the legal definition of neighbour, which I assume you understand the concept of), but that is from a liability perspective, not from a 'having responsibility for the goods in care'

To illustrate: If a house was broken into or went on fire. And if we accept that pretty-much these are circumstances beyond one's control. Are you seriously trying to say that common law-based 'duty of care' would make the OP responsible for the dress which she has kindly agreed to store as a favour.

No, the OP would only be 'responsible' for the goods if he/she had formally agreed to accept responsibility for them (which I hasten to add, they would be crazy to do).

This thread is a great example of how to make something very simple, into something difficult.

The solution is dead easy:

1. The OP accepts full responsibility and liability for the dress in her care and control (which I seriously wouldnbt recommend) or

2. The owner insures the dress (which would be the most logical and cleanest - and safest, from the OP's perspective - solution)

Alternatively, accept Vaio's 'solution' and see what happens in the event of a claim

DM

Dangermac

vaio wrote: »

Although it suits your argument I'm not sure that your "formally agreed to take responsibility for their safekeeping" can be read into the DL "for which you are responsible".

What does "formally agreed" mean? Contract? Does not "informal agreement" also qualify? How about common law tortuous duty of care?

If I borrow something off you then I am responsible for its safekeeping whilst I have it and would expect my insurer to cover it as if it was mine.

Maybe. Possibly. Depends on the nature of the arrangement. Might depend on what had been agreed between the parties (or implied). You understand the concept of implied contracts / express contracts?

However, you have changed the context with your example. Someone who borrows an item is more likely to have a legal responsibility for it whilst in their care or control, than the mere storing of an item.

vaio

I've not changed anything, I'm not sure whether a dress being stored would be covered, my post was in response to Quentin suggesting that possessions of guests and items I borrow aren't covered under my policy.

I am sure that possessions of guests in my house are covered as per the DL definitions and I'm equally sure that if I borrow a lawnmower or diamond ring off you and it gets stolen then my DL policy would cover it under the definition posted above.

nobbysn*ts

Household goods, personal possessions, camping equipment, money, satellite dishes, aerials and other articles, unless otherwise insured, for which you are responsible or that belong to you, domestic staff who live in or guests, except paying guests........Even though Dangermac's phrase for the formal agreement isn't there, you would assume "Look after my wedding dress will you"- "Yes, I'll take good care of it" would constitute a formal agreement.

Idiophreak

Dangermac wrote: »

To illustrate: If a house was broken into or went on fire. And if we accept that pretty-much these are circumstances beyond one's control. Are you seriously trying to say that common law-based 'duty of care' would make the OP responsible for the dress which she has kindly agreed to store as a favour.

Err, yes. In a word.

In this country, you're considered "responsible" if a burglar trips over your coffee table and bumps his knee. I'm pretty sure you'd be viewed as being "responsible" for the dress if you'd agreed to look after it and your house burnt down.

Even if you weren't "viewed" as being responsible, most people would consider themselves responsible.

If I agreed to look after a friend's possession and my house burnt down...You'd better believe I'd feel responsible for replacing it...and I'd hope that by extension the insurance company would be responsible for paying out.

Given the high cost of the item in question, I'd expect to have to itemise it on my insurance...

Dangermac

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Household goods, personal possessions, camping equipment, money, satellite dishes, aerials and other articles, unless otherwise insured, for which you are responsible or that belong to you, domestic staff who live in or guests, except paying guests........Even though Dangermac's phrase for the formal agreement isn't there, you would assume "Look after my wedding dress will you"- "Yes, I'll take good care of it" would constitute a formal agreement.

Having been in the industry for many years, and being a pretty goood liability technician, I am pretty good at spotting and solving problems, before they become problems.

If you are happy with an assumption taking care of the cover, I'm happy for you.

Personally, to be sure that the 'storers' household insurance would apply to the dress, you would need to have a verbal/written agreement which made the storer responsible for the dress whilst in his or her possession.

I guess it depends on what responsibility the OP wants to accept. In the absence of some sort of agreement/understanding (whether verbal or written), I still maintain that the OP isnt necessarily responsible for anything that happens to the dress whilst in his/her house.

DM

Dangermac

Idiophreak wrote: »

Err, yes. In a word.

In this country, you're considered "responsible" if a burglar trips over your coffee table and bumps his knee. I'm pretty sure you'd be viewed as being "responsible" for the dress if you'd agreed to look after it and your house burnt down.

Even if you weren't "viewed" as being responsible, most people would consider themselves responsible.

If I agreed to look after a friend's possession and my house burnt down...You'd better believe I'd feel responsible for replacing it...and I'd hope that by extension the insurance company would be responsible for paying out.

Given the high cost of the item in question, I'd expect to have to itemise it on my insurance...

errr. I think you may be incorrect in your assumption.

Just because the dress is stored at the friend's house doesnt necessarily make the friend responsible for anything that happens to the dress.

DM

trukdiver

Idiophreak wrote: »

Given the high cost of the item in question, I'd expect to have to itemise it on my insurance...

If you itemise it on your insurance, you'll have to pay extra plus the admin charge for changing your policy. Who's going to pay that?

Also, how do you determine how much it's actually worth? Just because the friend paid £2500 for it doesn't mean it actually worth that much. If it's been used, it might only be worth £50 on eBay, in which case it wouldn't have to be itemised. Or can you insure for sentimental value? :undecided

McKneff

What if the moths get to it.....:rotfl::rotfl:

nobbysn*ts

This is all irrelevant anyway. OP's insurer has said it's not covered, so how else can it be covered?