Forums

Will mess with this later, but brief look at is I'd use the following areas of the forms:
CP 00 90 7-88

All of A,D

CP 00 10 4-02

A1b (all of A, all of 1, all of b),
A2a (all of A, all of 2, all of a),
A5d(2)(b)

CP 10 30 4-02

A (all of it)
B2h, i, and m (all of B, all of 2 and all of h,i & m)
B3b (all of B, all of 3, all of b)
C1e (all of C, all of 1, all of e)
F1 in its entirity

That would cover a most of it, plus all the standard language, disclaimers, etc that go into the letter. It would probably be about a 8-10 page ROR when completed. Now the real trick is for you to write it. If i find time over the weekend I'll put one together by cut and paste of the policy language, but no time to really read it over close and do it now.

In the absence of any other coverage forms, why would a ROR letter be needed based on the facts as presented?  No other property loss reported, other than the cash.  Currency is not covered property under the CP0010 regardless of the cause of loss.  A direct denial could be issued based on the facts at hand.  So, what's the catch here, Steve?  You've put out the bait & I feel like you're about to set the hook!!

I just read all the forms listed and some others that I have in my CPCU book with the CP forms and CP 10 which describes the covered property specificly excludes currency and money. I agree with Mr. Kuntz, write the letter and  only use the language on page 2 of 14 # 2 Property Not Covered.

Covered Property does not include:

a. Accounts, bills,currency, food stamps or other evidence of debit, money, notes or securities. Lottery tickets held for sale are not securities;

ROR should be well thought out by top mgt. or GA's but the more words you use is like the monkey climbing the flag pole. More height (words)shows more of the  A-- H---.

In Texas the lottery folks ask the vendors to record the last sale each closing time, and if the tickets are stolen in a burglary and the vendors report when discovered, they are not held responsible...... so don,t pay for tickets in Texas and the merchants know this... but they can try. Also most of the cigarettes from the wholesale house show the retail cost, but the cost is about 25 to 26% lower than retail. Yes the front door pulled off by a chain and pickup is part of the loss.

Most merchants do not purchase a money policy or a safe burglary... the cost is just too high.

Who will hooked on this one Steve, keep em coming, I am tired of the weather channel. 

Steve I would have the insured sign a "standard" blank fill in the blanks non waiver, and explain that a full investigation is underway, but do not want to estop yourself from sending out a detailed ROR when the investigation is completed, which may take another week or so to review the agents application and the complete underwriting file and see if a police report was made etc.

Steve I am trying to guess the 2nd part of your question.The CP(policy) has been modified with parts of the Business Owners Coverage Form BP 00 03 07 02. the has G. Optional Coverages 2. Money and Securities which out lines that theft, meaning any act of stealing and even broader, disappearance. It also has employee dishonesty.If this is a manuscript policy, you threw a big curve ball in the dirt for strick three.

Just as I thought, Steve....you were holding back per your hint.  If it had been a local loss assigned to me, naturally I'd have been down at the agency & asking them to pull up the entire coverage forms for me before issuing a denial.  Otherwise, if via a phone convo with the agency didn't satisfy me regarding coverage forms available....then fer' sure a ROR letter is needed.  So, where's this going?  The ROR letter is going to pretty much limited to the language regarding no coverage for currency.  No other policy language for "employee dishonesty" or "money & securities" can be quoted unless those endorsements are attached...and thus far we don't know that they were. 

I'm on the same track as Sir Beaumont on this one.  A theft like this has many variables, not the least of which is who might turn out to be the eventual culprit.  It goes without saying, however, that it was either an employee or not an employee.  Knowing this, I would want to work from both possibilities.

Form 0090.  I agree with Steve B. that the fraud warning should be part of the reservation of rights.  However, I might not put the legal action against us clause in the ROR letter.  I might save that for a later letter, whether a denial or an arffirmation of coverage.

Form 0030.  I agree that I should include the insuring agreement, especially with regard to business personal property (A and A1b) and it would be very important to include A2a (exclusion of money and certain other securities as covered property).  There sould also be some mention, as Steve B. recommends that deals with property off premises and excluding property in or on a vehicle (A5d).  I would include all of section d rather than simply (2)(b).

Form 1030.  Section A should be included.  It tells us that all causes of loss are covered unless specifically excluded.  B2h (employee theft exclusion) and i (voluntary parting exclusion) are both very important.  I might not have thought of using i.  Glad Steve did.  I don't agree that m applies because that has to do with using all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of loss.  I would not consider not locking the car door (for instance) to fit this criteria because it would have been an act performed or not performed before the loss.  I also would not include B3b (acts or decisions of any person,etc.) unless it was to rule out coverage for an intentional theft by an insured.  I can see why Steve B. might include it.  I don't think I would, but it would exclude intentional acts which would include theft.  The inclusion of C1e might be a consideration because it deals with mysterious disappearance.  It is possible that the bag of cash simply dropped on the ground when he opened the door.  I'm not sure whether I would use this one, but if I wanted to keep all my options open, I might.  Finally, F1 in its entirety is important because it spells out the limited circumstances under which property in transit can be covered, including property in a vehicle, but specifying that there must be signs of forced entry into the locked compartment of a vehicle.

Of these all, the exclusion of money and certain other securities is probably the strongest coverage defense if only these three forms are considered. 

It's going to be a few more days until Ike hits Houston, so we have time for the second part of this question, so now it's time for me to add another form to the mix.

As most people who work commercial claims know, many companies include with their commercial policies a Property Enhancement Endorsement. These may be specific to the company who issues them, but are nonetheless somewhat standardized. I have learned to always, always check the property enhancement endorsement. Sometimes it includes unexpected coverage. Happy Burger happens to have such an endorsement. Among its provisions is the following:

c. Employee Dishonesty

(1) You may extend the insurance that applies to Your Business Personal Property to apply to loss or damage to "money" and "securities" and "other property" from 'theft" committed by an "employee", whether identified or not. acting alone or in collusion with other persons.

(2) As used in this Extension:

(a) "Employee mean any natural person:

(i) While in your service or for 30 days after termination of service;

(ii) Who you compensate directly by salary, wages or commissions; and

(iii) Who you have the right to direct and control while performing services for you; or

(iv) Employed by an employment contractor while that person is subject to your direction and control and performing services for you, excluding, however, any such person while having care and custody of property outside the premises.

"Employee" does not mean:

(vi) Any agent, broker, person leased to you by a labor leasing firm, factor, commission merchant, consignee, independent contractor or representative of the same general character;

(vii) Any "manager", director or trustee except while performing acts coming within the scope of the usual duties of an "employee"; or

(viii) Any shift bosses or managers, floormen, dealers, boxmen or shills.

(b) 'Manager" means a person serving in a directorial capacity for a limited liability company.

(c) 'Money" means:

(i) Currency, coins, and bank notes in current use and having a face value; and
(ii) Travelers checks, register checks and money orders held for sale to the public.

(d) "Occurrence" means all loss caused by, or involving, one or more "employees", whether the result of a single act or series of acts.

(e) "Other property" means any tangible property other than "money" and "securities" that has
intrinsic value but does not include any property excluded under this policy.

(f) "Securities" means negotiable and nonnegotiable instruments or contracts representing either "money" or property and includes:

(i) Tokens, tickets revenue and other stamps (whether represented by actual stamps or unused value in a meter) in current use; and

(ii) Evidence of debt issued in connection with credit or charge cards, which cards are not issued by you; but does not include "money".

(g) 'Theft" means the unlawful taking of "money", "securities" or "other property" to the deprivation of the Insured.

(3) You may extend this coverage to apply to loss caused by any "employee" while temporarily
outside the Coverage Territory for a period not more than 90 days.

(4) The most we will pay for loss in any one "occurrence" of Employee Dishonesty under this
Extension is $50,000.

Now what is everyone's opinion of whether there is coverage for this loss? You have investigated and have not discovered any additional facts other than those given in the original scenario.  There is no inland marine crime coverage on the policy.  This is the last form that will come into play on this loss.

As far as I'm concerned, Steve, this is mainly a Cat site and you along with Tom Toll are the guru's out here.  But this topic is out of the coverage realm as far as storms are concerned.  So, the storm guys aren't going to enter the mix on the argument/discussion.  And this isn't an argument per se, except I do have to disagree with you.   I would never issue a ROR letter based on the loss disclosed and with the coverage forms as described especially if the initial phone contact indicated the same "lost money" under the same circumstances. I would though, within the time constraint and within good faith measures, first contact the agent (if I was the staff adjuster) to ascertain if other coverage forms were available. But, if I'm an independent, there is absolutely no ROR letter with my name as author unless all coverage forms & their language available to me to quote in that ROR letter.  I know you've added that extra coverage form now, but what is it?  Do you have the form#?  I do not back off of my former stance...being the stubborn little mule that I can be.  Did I say mule?  meant jackass.....sorry to beat anyone else to the punch.   

Steve, I do agree with you. Anything that will make an adjuster THINK, is good. It may not be related to cat work, but it does require the mind to work. I encourage anyone to post questions and/or scenarios of coverage.

I kinda agree with all. I can think of a loss that could be a cat loss adjuster looking at a commercial building after a major storm. The form is the CP-10, 20 with the general condition. The loss was reported as a windstorm, severe roof damage to building and contents the building limit is 1 million the contents limit is 1 .5 million.

The adjuster finds a tilt wall building with a webbed metal joist roof system that is 500 sqs of BUR over perlite insulation and a metal deck. The roof is supported by 5 inch steel pipe supports that are attached to the 25/16 I beam supports on a grid of 30 ft OC n/s and 28 ft e/w. A large section is on the floor of this warehouse . The exact location is 30 feet from the South exterior wall . The open roof section is 48 feet wide and 120 feet long. The building is a mattress warehouse with mattress stacked on large wood pallets(the size of the mattress) 8 sets high. The roof does not have parapets. The 8x12 inch out side gutter has down spouts ever 70 feet that dump into the storm sewer system of the city. The roof drains are on 200 sf grids. The adjuster had to park one block away and wade into the loss. All of this was discovered 48 hours after the hurricane passed by the plant manager. His employees moved all the soaked stock out under a metal porch, and they errected a 3 foot high berm on the warehouse floor with sand bags to contain new rainfall inside the berm to pumped outside with a large rental pump.

When the adjuster gets on the roof he can not find any evidence of wind damage around the perimeter of the  building or in the area of the fall. While the adjuster is at the loss site  he walks to another section seperated by a fire door and a cinder block wall is not damaged and new stock is coming and going by the mattress coming in from China in cargo containers and going out in 42x10 semi- trailors.

Sort this out and I will give part you some investigation that will affect the loss.

The GA assigned to the loss returned the next day and interview the foreman and some of the employees. The adjuster noticed the 25/16 I beams were 34 foot long; therefore the butt ends were cantilevered on the support post. Possible 4-6 feet on some post. While talking to the employees and the tow motors whizzing around he noticed some nicks on the post and ask the oldest employee if any of them ever got knocked down. His reply was O yes, just a week before the storm ole Boudreaux hit one under the roof collapse and knocked it down and we did not have time to get it repaired before Old Gustov hit us.

You must send in a preliminary report with you recomendations and reserve after you first vist. You have 2 more days. What do you tell the VP of claims of your largest customer.

Lots of coverage questions on this loss for a simple old cat. adjuster.... huh

Geez, Ray,

I was hoping for your help to sort out whether there was coverage for this loss under the Property Enhancement Endorsement.  I didn't know you were going to throw in a whole new scenario!

I think you made your point, though.  Skill at reading and understanding the policy for one coverage hones your skills for reading the policy and understanding how it might apply even to a cat loss.  Of course, if the carriers just want estimators or damage appraisers they will not be interested in how well we can read the policy.  They can just go ahead and throw away the money they might have spent for 50 catadjusters on paying for a building that has no coverage under the windstorm policy in the first place. 

In addition, I have often found a few daily claims thrown in with the wind or hail claims whenever I worked for GAB because in a catastrophe the staff adjusters get way behind as well.  I could turn them back in or handle them.  I preferred to handle them (and get paid for handling them).

I use independents for all my claims except the few that I adjust from the desk.  When I encounter an independent who didn't check the policy materials I sent with the assignment, or sometimes didn't even recognize the materials as policy materials, dec sheets, etc. I put them on my list of people who I won't use again.

It's a a lesson I learned from Osma Obama on TV. When you don,t know the correct answer you stall for time, by changing the narrative, but we need some heavy commercial adjusters to come out on these simple windstorm losses that do not require much investigation or coverage knowledge....

I have the answer to yours, but, I will explain my coverage opinion before IKE hits Brazoria County(south of Galveston Island)

Hello Steve, Roy ..... This endorsement is applicable only IF PROVEN there was "Employee Dishonesty" (POL) i.e. a conviction, or absolute proof of theft. With this endoresement there are Usually Limits, Otherwise in your overall Scenario, you would need an ROR sent out, An ensuing Investigation, and Finally a Denial.  This is not a covered loss under this policy as described.

Roy, what a surprise.  Welcome back.

My questions to you, then, are:

Isn't it possible, or even likely, that there is employee invovlement in this loss?  Is it really necessary to absolutely prove that there is employee involvement in the loss?  Don't we owe it to the insured to give the insured the benefit of the doubt?  Remember that our insured is not Guido, but Happy Burger.

There are other coverage issues that this endorsement raises, as well.

How true, Roy...the employee dishonesty claims can be ugly to handle.  It's been a few years since I handled any but did have several.  You can't get a statement from the "suspect", and it was usually a smaller sized company with sloppy book-keeping by the "suspect" and little or no oversight by the owner.  Throw in the low budget accountant they used who had no useful information or records to back up anything, and these types of claims made you feel a little bit helpless.  And of course the agent is crawling up & down your back because the insured knows he's been scalped by an employee, but you cannot prove it in order to afford the coverage. 

Oh, and by the way...sorry I left you out Ray.  I mentioned the "guru's of coverage", but forgot to mention you as the grandfather guru.  I see now another name from the past has thrown his opinion out here.  That was the main intent of my prior post, by the way Steve.  Just seems this type of topic doesn't get a whole lot of input from the storm guys/gals.  Maybe that will change as the audience increases with the impending arrival of IKE.