Still have a couple questions that come into my mind on this one.  We have determined that money is a covered item I believe.  I think that we may have determined that Guido would have been a covered person under the policy/endorsements had he taken the money, etc.  Remember that a complete investigation is required on a case like this and those who said no ROR needed, to go ahead and deny up front based facts as presented may have been premature.  How often are theft/mys dis. claims denied upfront with no investigation/R/S/ police report, etc.  Steve, what did Guido state in his R/S about the theft of the $? That it was in the car at the time he got out to look at the accident, and he placed it under the seat? Then he got back in and drove to work and it was gone. Does he swear someone got into the car and took it while at accident? What did he tell the police about that? I am assuming there were no broken windows on the car when he got back to it, or smashed door locks as he would have noticed that right away probably and it would be noted on the police report. What did the car look like when you investigated it afterward (going back to that investigation thing that is stuck in my claw)? I would venture to guess that Guido is not going to tell you he took the $ or handed it off to someone else. Based on the piecemeal stuff you fed us, his testimony is going to be that someone got it out of the car at the scene of the accident while he was trying to see if he could help.

That is how I look at the circumstances of this case. Anyone who denied upfront without all the facts (coverages or investigation) is way to quick to pull the trigger. ROR, with at least all the parts originally quoted initially involved, and maybe adding in some clarification, or backing out some based on the enhanced endorsement language. Anyone still see any areas that may raise any questions of coverage that the agent's assertions don't cover? Steve, I agree with your analysis of the the three bullet points that the agent brings up. Roy, I know we all do it ourselves, but it is dangerous when we say things like "Enhancement endorsement's involving monitory instruments have very low Limits Of Liability and HIGH Deductible amounts and accompanied by a schedule." I recently made a similiar comment on the forums about "most policies have language in the flood exclusion about if a fire ensues..." Reliance on those type of blanket statements w/o benefit of reading the coverages actually involved will get one nailed far too often.