Inherent vice
In the case of Chute v. North River Ins. Co. (1927) 172 Minn 13, it was held that an all risks policy did not cover the cracking of an opal which had an inherent tendency to disintegrate even though the policy covered breakage. Interestingly, the court said that it takes explicit language to extend the insurance beyond damage arising from extraneous causes so that it covers automatic deterioration alone. This suggests that the court considered such damage could be expressly covered although it would turn the agreement into a contract of warranty rather than insurance.
Wear and tear
Wear and tear covers damage caused by constant use or action. It has been applied to the discoloration of paintwork, although perhaps it would be more accurate to describe such discoloration as an inherent vice, and the chipping and marking of the paintwork as being wear and tear. It is most accurate to describe the damage as being caused by wear and tear where some form of action or motion (whether it be mechanical, human or natural) has created the damage - for example, the moving parts of machinery or carpet worn out by constant use.
The difficulty for the insurer, as always, is identifying whether the damage is caused by wear and tear or an accidental event. It may, for example, be quite natural for a particular piece of machinery gradually to lose its effectiveness through wear and tear, but if a piece of it breaks off and causes damage, is the proximate cause of that damage the wear and tear which is excluded or the event of the piece breaking off? Is the loss an inevitable result of the process or was it unexpected? It is possible to look at it from the perspective of proximate cause, namely was wear and tear the proximate cause or the breaking of the machinery part. There is little guidance that can be given as each case will depend very much upon its own facts, but generally where there has been an identifiable single event which has created the damage, it is unlikely that the court will find that the proximate cause is wear and tear.
Willis J. Watson is a freelance writer since 2006, living in United States and he writes about he enjoys the most...insurance policies. If you want to read more information about Landlord Insurance Quote and also read more reviews about Compare Building Insurance, you can check out his websites.
In the case of Chute v. North River Ins. Co. (1927) 172 Minn 13, it was held that an all risks policy did not cover the cracking of an opal which had an inherent tendency to disintegrate even though the policy covered breakage. Interestingly, the court said that it takes explicit language to extend the insurance beyond damage arising from extraneous causes so that it covers automatic deterioration alone. This suggests that the court considered such damage could be expressly covered although it would turn the agreement into a contract of warranty rather than insurance.
Wear and tear
Wear and tear covers damage caused by constant use or action. It has been applied to the discoloration of paintwork, although perhaps it would be more accurate to describe such discoloration as an inherent vice, and the chipping and marking of the paintwork as being wear and tear. It is most accurate to describe the damage as being caused by wear and tear where some form of action or motion (whether it be mechanical, human or natural) has created the damage - for example, the moving parts of machinery or carpet worn out by constant use.
The difficulty for the insurer, as always, is identifying whether the damage is caused by wear and tear or an accidental event. It may, for example, be quite natural for a particular piece of machinery gradually to lose its effectiveness through wear and tear, but if a piece of it breaks off and causes damage, is the proximate cause of that damage the wear and tear which is excluded or the event of the piece breaking off? Is the loss an inevitable result of the process or was it unexpected? It is possible to look at it from the perspective of proximate cause, namely was wear and tear the proximate cause or the breaking of the machinery part. There is little guidance that can be given as each case will depend very much upon its own facts, but generally where there has been an identifiable single event which has created the damage, it is unlikely that the court will find that the proximate cause is wear and tear.
Willis J. Watson is a freelance writer since 2006, living in United States and he writes about he enjoys the most...insurance policies. If you want to read more information about Landlord Insurance Quote and also read more reviews about Compare Building Insurance, you can check out his websites.
No comments:
Post a Comment