Insurance for Your Business

12/01/2025

https://youtu.be/snN1yb3jDi4?si=Nm8jQp8OahJSwk_F

Learn to prevent wildfires, heal landscapes, rejuvenate watersheds, and restore ecosystems: https://www.waterstories.com/core-course The ongoing fires in Cal...

10/01/2025

https://youtu.be/5TS1YqKrIYE?si=EK_jbf62rzKl8PYN

Insurance CRISIS | Americans Will Pay For California's MistakesPopular Video Content:🎥 US News: - http://bit.ly/USworldnews💰 Stocks & Finance: - https://bi...

31/10/2024

Fire insurance - Case Study
Thieves broke into a warehouse to steal goods stored therein. After removing a substantial quantity of goods, the thieves decided to burn down the place to cover their tracks. What is the proximate cause of the loss? Theft, malicious damage or arson? Would the Fire policy respond to a claim? The Fire policy excludes loss by theft and has no RSMD extension.

The proximate cause of the loss is theft. So the insured should be to claim from his burglary insurance, but chances were his burglary policy was on the 1st. Loss basis. This meant that his burglary policy could not cover his total loss - those physically taken plus those damaged by fire. He had to make use of his fire policy to claim for the fire loss of those remaining goods and warehouse. The fire caused by the burglars was an act of arson to cover their tracks. Since it was a continuous chain of events to the initial cause, burglary/ theft the proximate cause of burglary/ theft was still operative which was not excluded in any fire policy. Therefore the loss by fire of those remaining stocks and the warehouse are claimable. So even without the Malicious Damage extension, the fire loss was claimable as the proximate cause was still theft.

Please do note that the loss by theft is only excluded from any fire policy during or after the occurrence of fire. Loss by fire caused by theft activities is not excluded in any fire policy so it is claimable.

31/10/2024

Marine Insurance

Marine cargo insurance covers any happening that affects the interests insured during the shipment or transportation from one location to another. Any change in the carrying vessel to another is allowed even without notification as long as the replacement vessel satisfies the Institute Classification Clause (ICC). If the shipper or anyone interested in the shipment has the knowledge he should inform the insurer if an inferior replacement (not within ICC) or change of route. The insurable interest of any marine cargo policy falls on the owner or buyer or the one with a financial interest in the shipment at the time of loss. The ownership can change hands, but the insured's name in a marine policy does not have to change, unlike other classes of insurance and the cover is still enforceable for the new owner at the time of loss. This is a feature of Marine Insurance, both hull and cargo as it is based on the practices of merchants when they first started marine insurance in ancient times.

27/10/2024

A question looking for an answer - presented by Sifu Raymond Hwang
Several cars travelling along the East-West Highway were damaged by wild elephants. Would the Comprehensive Motor policy pay for the repairs? Due to accidental collision or malicious damage? We should introduce an add-on to cover damage caused by wildlife.

This is my answer to the claim position.

Points to establish for the claim:

1. Site of incidence -
1a. What was the legal usage of the site?
The East-West Highway was a public road for vehicles with valid road taxes driven by drivers with valid driving licenses. Expired driving licenses were still valid, and subjected to fines for their offenses of unpaid renewal dues.

1b. What was the legal status of the visitors or users on the site?
The cars are licensed to use on this highway as long as they have valid road taxes and their drivers have valid driving licenses as mentioned in !a above. The wild elephants were not legally allowed to use or be on the highway so their presence was an obstacle to the moving traffic of vehicles. The damages to the cars were due to collision with these animals. If they were not wild their owners would have to answer for the damages arising from these collisions. The damages could not be classified as malicious since they were not driven by a sound-minded human. Only a sound-minded human could think and cause hurt or damage to another with malicious intent. Animals only think of escaping and roaming.

1c. Was the site properly maintained?
Legally, any built-up structure, such as a building, and any land or natural structure that has been developed or disturbed by humans, its owner or operator is responsible for its upkeep to ensure safety to the public and their visitors or users. The highway was well maintained, as there were no potholes. Anyway, it was not the subject of the question.

1. Were there adequate measures taken to prevent trespassing or illegal entry of unwelcome elements that could endanger legal visitors or users.
The presence of wild elephants roaming about on the highway confirmed there were breaches in the fencing of the highway. So the owner/ operator, the highway authority had to bear the liability of the damages for not preventing the unwelcome animals from entering the highway which endangered the users.

2. Did the claimant within his ability take any action or precautionary measures to minimise or prevent further deterioration of his loss?
It was beyond the ability of the drivers to avoid the attacks by the roaming elephants except to pray for a path to clear to escape from these animals

3. The coverage of the insurance:
4a. Did the causes of the incidence fall under the coverage?
The claims for damages should be payable as the elephants’ presence on the highway was an obstacle to the traffic flow.

4b. Was there any breach?
There was no breach as the highway was for the use by vehicles, except for any vehicle without valid road tax.

There is no requirement to have a wild animal cover if the vehicle is solely used on roads or highways. The cover would be required for country paths or tracks in plantations or jungles.

26/10/2024

https://youtu.be/if5vktFJ6jw?si=WijWHoq1QxfqeSp2

CTA-Timer Pro (Trade with the Machines) $30/mo -- Only $1 a day with the first month free using the coupon code "FREEMONTH" at checkout or the link below. Li...

21/10/2024

Business Interruption Insurance - Increase in interest charges

As there had been a delay in payment by the MD policy for replacing damaged machinery, the insured resorted to bank borrowings to finance the purchase on an urgent basis. This helped the business to resume production earlier and avoided a heavy reduction in turnover. Can the insured claim the additional interest charges as ICOW? Strictly speaking, this additional cost did not arise in consequence of the damage but arises because of the insured's shortage of funds. There is a policy term saying the insurer will not be liable for extended interruption due to the insured's lack of funds to rehabilitate the business. Is this fair?

There are 2 questions to be answered:
1. Is Interest payment for the bank borrowings for the purchase of machinery claimable under ICOW?
2. The application of the policy term, “the insurer will not be liable for extended interruption due to the insured’s lack of funds to rehabilitate the business”.

Yes, the insured could claim for the interest payment from when the new machinery was purchased until the production was restored to its previous level or its projected increase level (provided it was insured at that increased level) or the machinery claim proceed had been made whichever was earlier. The interest payment was due to the delay in settlement of the machinery claim, a consequential cost arising from the damage, and the delay in payment. Normally, this interest issue would not be a problem as the insured would purchase under lease. Under the lease, the ownership of the machinery would remain with the financier and not the insured. So the monthly lease payments would be treated as rentals, a production cost.

The policy term, “the insurer will not be liable for extended interruption due to the insured’s lack of funds to rehabilitate the business”. This condition prevents the insured/ claimant from delaying the rehabilitation of his business using the excuse of lack of funds. The claimant could approach his insurer for interim payment or his bankers or finance companies for funds to rehabilitate his business. In our case, the insured resorted to bank borrowings to purchase his machinery. So this condition gives the insured the right to claim for any additional expenses and interest payment in getting finance to install replacement machinery to speed up the rehabilitation of his production or business. The condition is justified and fair and falls under minimisation of loss.

20/10/2024

Elon Musk reveals his groundbreaking deal with China to develop and launch the world's first electric airplane! In this exclusive video, we dive into the inn...

14/10/2024

Seminar for Marine Cargo Insurance on 1/10/2005 - from 2.00pmno to 5.00pm at Hotel City Bayview, Penang. Attendees: Staff of Jardine Shipping Agencies Sdn Bhd - Penang Branch.

I just found my old notes to share from my email. Please click and read.

06/10/2024

Fire And Business Interruption Insurances

Some criminals had tempered goods in a supermarket by injecting poisons into them. An extortion note was sent to the owner who refused to pay for the information to the whereabout of the tempered goods. The owner closed his supermarket for a week to identify and clear the tempered goods. Both policies, Fire and Business Interruption have RSMD extension.
Question - Would both policies, Fire and Business Interruption pay these losses, 1) the destruction of the any goods which were affected by the tempering, directly or indirectly and 2)loss of gross profit due to a week closure for clearing the tempered goods?

Tempering of goods by a third party is malicious damage, an insured peril. Since the case concerned foodstuffs the health and safety regulations are stringent. So any good near the affected ones would have to be discarded. From the surveillance CCTV, the owner could identify those areas where the extortionists had injected the poison. The goods in those areas must be cleared and treated as damaged.

Yes, the tempered goods were treated as damaged and spoiled so they could be claimed under property loss. Based on the surveillance CCTV records, the owner had to inform his insurer of the sorting out of the tempered goods. Since there was a claim on the property insurance, the fire policy, the claim on the BI policy is triggered. So the loss of gross profit could be claimed. The insured peril, Malicious Damaghe had triggered claims on both policies..