, Resources for Adjusters from Adjusters

Cannabalism Work and Career Info | Training | Locate Adjusters
Vendors | Marketplace

The Adjuster's Forum » Coverage Question Corner » Cannabalism « Site Map »

Author Message
Charles J. Hoffman
Posted on Friday, September 03, 1999 - 12:07 pm:   

Thanks for the solution to that question. I tend to get very restless mentally when I am posed with a problem I am unable to answer. My IM policies are limited to the standard forms ( i.e.,
Builders Risk and Transportation). I do recall a Discovery channel show on minks that explained the new dominant male would consume the offspring of the vanquished. I definitely see the need for a exclusion of that type in regards to mink farming. I must also inform you that a combined 100 yrs. experience amoungst my assoc. were baffled as well. We don't see many mink farms in W.PA. Great question!
Jim Flynt
Posted on Friday, September 03, 1999 - 11:25 am:   

THE CORRECT ANSWER to the coverage question: Which ISO "filed" form specifically EXCLUDES "Cannabalism" is:

Chuck Hoffman
Posted on Friday, September 03, 1999 - 8:37 am:   

As to your posed cannibalism question, it immediately provoked a commercial liability exclusion to me. Specifically in the ocean marine and or aircraft coverage arena. I have checked the ISO's I have, in this regard, and found some potentially evasive policy language which would elude to this type of exclusion, but none with that specific word. I must state that my collection of policies is by no way comprehensive, and I am after some research baffled by this question.
Jim Flynt
Posted on Thursday, September 02, 1999 - 8:23 pm:   

Sean, You are correct that "intentional acts" (of the Insured) are not "covered", but what about the acts of others which may well be covered (i.e.,:Theft,Malicious Mischief,Vandalism,etc.)?

The original question that I asked was Which ISO "FILED FORM" SPECIFICALLY "EXCLUDES" "Cannabalism"? There is ONLY ONE ISO FILED FORM where "Cannabalism" is mentioned as an "Exclusion."

Any other guesses from anyone?
Sean Wilmert
Posted on Thursday, September 02, 1999 - 5:49 pm:   


I have an answer to your coverage question. Although I am pretty sure it is not the one you are looking for. "Cannabalism" would not be covered under any policy. The reason for this is that Intentional Acts are never covered. I am sure you are aware of this and are looking for a more specific answer. I tried looking it up and could not find the form you are talking about.
Let us know what the answer is.

Jim Flynt
Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 1999 - 2:49 am:   

Russ, the HO 04 61 Scheduled Personal Property Endorsement covers property up to a limit agreeable to both the Insurer and the Insured. The endorsement offers "All Risks" coverage on specifically identified property anywhere in the world (fine arts limited to coverage for the United States and Canada) with no deductible. The endorsement provides "first dollar coverage" for covered losses. There are only four broad categories of perils excluded by this endorsement: (1) Wear and tear, gradual deterioration, inherent vice (2) Insects or vermin (3) War, including undeclared, civil, warlike acts, destruction/seizure by military force and (4) Nuclear hazard.
Russ Lott
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 1999 - 10:44 pm:   

I have a coverage question, is there an ISO endorsement that will give contents or unlisted personal property all risk coverage?
Russ Lott
Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 1999 - 10:42 pm:   

Bob, Insurance to value is a critical part of the adjustment of the flood loss, it can affect the bottom line payment to the Insured. I usually measure the perimeter of the building before scoping the interior, other adjusters do it after they scope the interior. I like to see the entire property it will help you cover the substantial improvement condition of the policy in your report. You can also see if there are contents you need to address in any outbuildings. The flood policy has many traps but hey, even the seasoned adjusters started somewhere. Hope I helped, and good luck.
Chuck Hoffman
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 1999 - 5:37 pm:   

Bob, you would have to perform the ITV (insurance to value) using any of the nationally recognized
valuation programs,Beockh and Marshall swift are most accepted. There are also publications by Craftsman and Means which are excellent. Check always with the carrier you represent as to their preference, this will save you trouble in the long run. Thank you for posing your question.
Good luck and never hesistate to ask.
Bob Fisher
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 1999 - 4:44 pm:   

Here is a question about flood coverage.
According to the NFIP Dwelling Policy, one condition for seepage to be covered is that the insured building be insured for at least 80% of its replacement cost or the maximum amount of insurance available under the NFIP.
How does an adjuster determine replacement cost of the building short of getting an appraisal?

Don't have a clue about cannabalism question, Jim, but thanks for starting this forum.
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 1999 - 12:17 am:   

the insurer would use the de-fence that all adjusters think they are god and acts of god are excluded
Jess Startin
Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 1999 - 7:32 am:   


With vandalism, could the insurance company then subrogate against the adjuster who pulls up the fence? What if the cost of the fence damage is in excess of what the adjuster is paid for handling his one claim? Will the insurance company take a note or IOU?

ONE MORE QUESTION: Is there coverage for when the insurance company also "vandalizes" the adjuster by not paying him?
Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 1999 - 7:22 am:   

certainly. vandalism
Jess Startin
Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 1999 - 7:17 am:   


If all the adjusters who go to Kennedy County, Texas pull up the barbed wire fence from the King Ranch to try and strangle each other with it in order to take their one claim away from them,
Jim Flynt
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 1999 - 1:11 am:   

From time to time every adjuster either has a coverage question or has to stop and think about the aspects of policy coverage.

I offer this topic for those, especially NEWBEE'S, who may have a question regarding a policy coverage issue.

If you have a question, post it here, and we'll all work together to find the right answer.

Just to get everyone started, I offer the following question, and will provide an answer by this weekend if no one else gets it right (yes, I do know the one correct answer). PS: If you have ever heard me discuss this question on a storm, please pass and let's see how many others know the answer.

The question is: What is the only ISO filed form which specifically EXCLUDES "Cannabalism" as a Covered Cause of Loss? (Honest to God, this is a serious question with only ONE RIGHT answer.

Good Luck and a case of cold Coors for the first correct answer (compliments of me).

Topics | Home | Current Forum | The Classifieds | Adjuster Roster | Channels | Resources | About « Site Map » An Adjuster to Adjuster Community