insure a dress to be stored elsewhere???

vaio

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

"My insurance company say that it won't be covered under my contents insurance " - They did. Not simples.

Assuming the OPs policy has wording similar to the DL one posted above I suspect this is a case of some script monkey saying "no" because the script doesn't mention wedding dresses.

If I was the OP I'd stick a complaint in and get it looked at by somebody further up the food chain

Buzby

I have not found any policy that would provide all-risks cover - for example vermin attacks would not be covered my many (most). It would be sensible to leave the dress with the supplier and be covered by their trade insurance.

TSx

I completely disagree that there is insurable interest in the case of an item being stored as a favour. There is no legal responsibility there, and the insurer will not pay out on moral responsibility alone.

For there to be 'responsibility', there would need to be a legal relationship, and for that, there would need to be an express intention to create legal relations, and consideration (i.e payment). Of course, that then may be viewed as a business relationship which could complicate matters further.

Most insurers provide additional cover for items temporarily removed, and this is the relevant cover to claim under - for the owner of the dress.

Incidentally, when considering the earlier point about guests, Direct Line's standard policy wording covers Visitors Personal Belongings up to £500 - I haven't checked but I'd hazard a guess there's a similar escape clause which means items already covered under another insurance policy will not be included. On the rare occasion we've dealt with these claims, we require proof that the home insurer will not cover the items (and they usually would, under the contents temporarily removed extension).

edit: Actually, the Direct Line wording has thrown me slightly - the wording makes no reference to this, but the summary of cover here refers to a limit. I'm not sure if they've changed the wording or if the limit is in the schedule.

vaio

As above, I'm not sure an insurable interest arises on the stored dress but equally I'm not entirely clear how one arises on guests possessions either but they are covered, maybe this is an instance of insurers paying out on moral/fairness grounds

And I suppose it can get tricky with the "what is a guest" question...

A visitor? Some one who stays overnight?

If my friend Sue visits me and we go out for the day I'd assume that possessions she leaves in my house are covered whilst we are out. What if we are out for two days? two weeks? What if she goes out by herself? What if she goes to stay with other friends leaving stuff at my house? Is she still my guest?

How about if she goes home but intends to return? Still my guest?

I'd say yes in every case and that would also apply if the possessions she leaves at my house happens to be a wedding dress

InsideInsurance

Unfortunately in an all day workshop so didnt get chance to chip in to the debate. Clearly it comes down to actual wording of the insurer in question and a certain amount of interpretation.

If I borrow something or someone asks me to look after it for them then there is a responsibility. I dont believe an actual contract is required to establish that responsibility. Similarly if I lent my guitar to someone and they left it behind in a pub I'd expect them to repay me and would have a fairly good chance in court despite the lack of contract.

The OP never actually said if the issue was actually that it was owned by someone else or if its the value of the item

AALC

Thanks all,

So I will suggest she sees whether her insurance will cover. If her contents insurance policy
won't cover it then what kind of providers could she approach?

A

tyllwyd

Does she have to take delivery of the dress beforehand - maybe the dressmakers/shop would be able to store it and insure it for her and she could have it delivered straight to her own house?

Dangermac

vaio wrote: »

As above, I'm not sure an insurable interest arises on the stored dress but equally I'm not entirely clear how one arises on guests possessions either but they are covered, maybe this is an instance of insurers paying out on moral/fairness grounds

And I suppose it can get tricky with the "what is a guest" question...

A visitor? Some one who stays overnight?

If my friend Sue visits me and we go out for the day I'd assume that possessions she leaves in my house are covered whilst we are out. What if we are out for two days? two weeks? What if she goes out by herself? What if she goes to stay with other friends leaving stuff at my house? Is she still my guest?

How about if she goes home but intends to return? Still my guest?

I'd say yes in every case and that would also apply if the possessions she leaves at my house happens to be a wedding dress

Strange. You seem to have changed your position since post number 11 (although I'm sure that you will say that you havent)

In post 11, you said that you would expect to be as responsible for someone else's goods, is if it were your own.

Whereas, in the above post, you are questioning that insurable interest applies (which indeed is my position about 25 posts ago!).

In summary, if full legal responsibility were to apply, simply because something is stored there, you would find that car parks would have to pay out, each time a car was dented in their car park. Indeed, there is case law on such an issue (involving NCP Car Parks), where the court ruled that the ability to park a car on their property was simply a 'licence' and did not make NCP liable for all damage that occurred on their property.

From the information provided, I am pretty sure that there is no insurable interest, and that the owner should make their own arrangements.

Furthermore, the existing insurer has pretty much given the OP that same position. They havent stated their reason, but you can be sure that the problem is one of 'insurable interest'

DM

vaio

I don't think I've changed...post 11 was about something I borrow which by definition provides me a benefit & hence insurable interest.

I'm less sure about storing a dress which doesn't provide a benefit (apart from maybe a nice warm feeling from helping a mate)

Then DL go and confuse things by covering guests possessions where I similarly can't see how an insurable interest arises but as they do cover them then it seems to me that the dress would fall into this category and be covered as per post #35.

Dangermac

vaio wrote: »

I don't think I've changed...post 11 was about something I borrow which by definition provides me a benefit & hence insurable interest.

I'm less sure about storing a dress which doesn't provide a benefit (apart from maybe a nice warm feeling from helping a mate)

Then DL go and confuse things by covering guests possessions where I similarly can't see how an insurable interest arises but as they do cover them then it seems to me that the dress would fall into this category and be covered as per post #35.

I agree with you (the above post): there is far more chance of insurable interest arising with a borrowed item, as opposed to mere storage as a favour.

That's why I suggested that, to avoid confusion and to create insurable interest, one solution would be for a 'formal' agreement to be put in place (only needs to be one sentence). This would create an insurable interest.

In reality, a formal agreement could be put in place retrospectively if something happened. The trick is to be aware of where an insurance problem could arise in the event of a claim. Which is what I have tried to demonstrate.

The problem is, that this is a potential banana-skin of an issue, and there are a number of well-meaning posters on this thread who would almost certainly walk straight into a problem.

DM