Two Policies, Two Measures of Loss
Ridgeline Cabinet Works insures its shop contents under two policies. Policy A, a businessowner's policy, covers business personal property at replacement cost with a $300,000 limit and a $2,500 deductible; its other-insurance clause is pro rata. Policy B, from a specialty carrier, covers the same property with a $100,000 limit on an actual cash value basis, a $1,000 deductible, and identical pro rata wording. A dust collector ignites and destroys contents with a replacement cost of $180,000 and an actual cash value of $120,000. The dust collector had been under a recall notice, and its manufacturer pays the owner $60,000 to settle the owner's claim.
1. How much should each policy pay, and why is the owner not indemnified to the full $180,000 replacement cost?
Read the worked answer
Pro rata shares by limit:
- Policy A: 300,000 / 400,000 = 75%
- Policy B: 100,000 / 400,000 = 25%
Each policy measures the loss its own way, so apply the share to that policy's measure:
- A: 75% × 180,000 = 135,000, less $2,500 deductible = $132,500
- B: 25% × 120,000 = 30,000, less $1,000 deductible = $29,000
- Total: $161,500
Why not $180,000: the principle of indemnity caps recovery at the actual loss, and the two gaps are structural, not errors. B pays only depreciated value, so 25% of the $60,000 depreciation ($15,000) is simply not insured. The remaining $3,500 is deductibles. Check: 180,000 − 15,000 − 3,500 = 161,500.
A defensible alternative is to apply the shares to a single measure of loss and let the carriers work it out, but the insured's net lands in the same neighborhood, and the insured never collects more than the loss. The practical lesson is that the small ACV policy cost the owner $15,000 of depreciation while adding only about $29,000 of capacity.
2. What happens to the $60,000 from the manufacturer? Can the owner keep it and the insurance proceeds?
Read the worked answer
No. The owner cannot recover twice for the same loss. Once the insurers pay, they are subrogated to the owner's rights against the manufacturer to the extent of their payments. The owner holds the settlement, to that extent, for the insurers.
Allocation. Pro rata to what each insurer actually paid:
- A: 132,500 / 161,500 ≈ 82% of $60,000 ≈ $49,200
- B: 29,000 / 161,500 ≈ 18% of $60,000 ≈ $10,800
The nuance worth flagging. The owner's uncompensated loss is $18,500 ($15,000 depreciation plus $3,500 deductibles). Many jurisdictions let the insured be made whole before insurers subrogate; others enforce the policy's subrogation clause strictly. That is a legal question, not an adjuster's call, and the answer determines whether the owner keeps roughly $18,500 off the top before the insurers divide the rest. What is not defensible is the owner keeping all $60,000 and all $161,500.
3. What should the agent recommend at renewal to close the gap the owner just experienced?
Read the worked answer
Attack the measure of loss first, the limits second.
- Drop Policy B or convert it to replacement cost. A $100,000 ACV policy on the same property bought almost nothing except a $15,000 depreciation gap and a pro rata fight.
- If two policies must remain (different lenders, different lenders' requirements, or a landlord's requirement), negotiate excess other-insurance wording on one of them rather than pro rata. Then the replacement-cost policy pays first and the second policy sits above it.
- Raise A's limit to something that reflects the real contents value. A $300,000 limit against a $180,000 single-item loss in one building leaves little room for a total loss.
- Confirm the recall issue: if a manufacturer's recall was outstanding, some property forms exclude loss from equipment under recall, and the owner may have had a coverage gap that was never discussed. That is an E&O conversation, not a sales conversation.