The $78,750 Coinsurance Penalty
Ridgeline Fabrication LLC insures its only building under a commercial property form with an 80% coinsurance clause, a $600,000 building limit, a $5,000 deductible, and replacement cost settlement. At the time of a March 14 fire, an appraisal sets replacement cost at $1,000,000 and actual cash value at $720,000. The fire causes $300,000 in damage; repair bids come in at $310,000 and the owner has not started repairs. Two years earlier the owner's broker recommended a $900,000 limit in writing, but the owner cut the limit to $600,000 to save premium. The owner now insists the adjuster "make him whole," arguing the building is worth only $720,000 and that any coinsurance figure should be built on that number.
1. What will the insurer pay, and how much of the loss falls on Ridgeline? Show the arithmetic.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - Set the coinsurance basis. Because the form settles on a replacement cost basis, the coinsurance percentage is applied to replacement cost at the time of loss.
- Required limit = 80% × $1,000,000 = $800,000
- Limit actually carried = $600,000
Step 2 - Compute the coinsurance factor.
- $600,000 ÷ $800,000 = 0.75
Step 3 - Apply the factor to the covered loss. On this form the deductible is applied to the loss before the coinsurance factor is applied (order is set in the Loss Payment condition; confirm the form).
- $300,000 − $5,000 = $295,000
- $295,000 × 0.75 = $221,250
Step 4 - Insured's retained share.
- $300,000 − $221,250 = $78,750 (the $5,000 deductible plus $73,750 of coinsurance penalty)
Cap check: the coinsurance formula can never produce more than the limit of insurance. If the loss had approached $800,000 the payment would have topped out at the $600,000 limit minus the deductible. The insured, not the carrier, absorbs the underinsurance.
2. The owner argues the coinsurance denominator should be the $720,000 ACV rather than replacement cost. Evaluate that argument, including what the claim would look like on an ACV form.
Read the worked answer
The argument fails on a replacement cost form. The coinsurance clause exists to prevent an insured from paying premium on a depreciated value and then collecting replacement dollars. If the ACV were the denominator, an owner could insure to 80% of depreciated value and still collect full replacement cost - exactly the adverse selection the clause is designed to block.
What an ACV settlement would actually produce (illustrative):
- Required limit = 80% × $720,000 = $576,000
- $600,000 ÷ $576,000 = 1.04 → no penalty applies (factor is capped at 1.00)
- ACV of the loss, assuming uniform depreciation of 72% ($720,000 ÷ $1,000,000), would be about $216,000
- Payable: $216,000 − $5,000 = $211,000
Conclusion: the insured is still better off under the replacement cost form ($221,250 > $211,000) even after the penalty. The owner's real complaint is underinsurance, not the valuation basis - and the remedy was a higher limit before the fire, not a different denominator after it.
3. If the owner had carried the $900,000 limit his broker recommended, what would he have collected, and what does that tell you about the producer's position?
Read the worked answer
Payment with a $900,000 limit:
- Required limit remains $800,000
- $900,000 ÷ $800,000 = 1.13, capped at 1.00 → no coinsurance penalty
- Payable: $300,000 − $5,000 = $295,000
The difference between $295,000 and $221,250 is $73,750 of pure coinsurance penalty - the price of the premium the owner saved.
Producer exposure analysis:
- A producer is expected to advise on limits but is not the guarantor of the client's insurance-to-value. Written documentation of a specific limit recommendation is the single most important defense.
- The broker here has that documentation, which typically defeats an errors-and-omissions claim unless the client can show the recommendation was never delivered or was overridden without informed consent.
- Practical lesson worth stating in the answer: offer an agreed value option or an inflation guard endorsement where the client refuses to insure to value, and re-run the coinsurance calculation at each renewal - the exposure is the gap between required and carried limits, not the loss amount.