newshane Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Disappointing to hear. And it's renewal time to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstojano Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 I share my CIS experience where I can. I used them for several years, no claims, no issues. Sold a chunk of the collection with two damaged items in the mail. They paid both, and then proceeded to drop me entirely. So be aware of filing more than 1 claim within a certain amount of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Red84 Posted March 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) I'm sorry your property was damaged by the framer and I hope you can recover from him. The exclusion from Collect Insure is however clearly listed in the policy. Home | What We Insure | Exclusions Exclusions to our coverage Government seizure or destruction of property War and nuclear hazards Gradual deterioration such as fading, creasing or denting Nesting, infestation or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by insects, rodents or other animals Dampness or dryness of atmosphere Changes in or extremes of temperature other than fire Fraudulent, dishonest or criminal acts Voluntary parting with covered property Loss or damage while being worked on by you or others working on your behalf Mysterious disappearance This is not a complete list of exclusions and exclusions can vary by policy." Presumably this exclusion is there because of the uncertainty about what collect insure would be insuring. They don't know the quality of the framer, or the comic grader, or restorer, etc. Or if someone wanted to press their own books any damage resulting from that process would not be covered. If you look at their shipping protections they provide coverage for shipping USPS and FedEx but do not cover UPS. I would assume that is because they have found that UPS was more likely to damage or lose property. They've done a cost/benefit analysis and determined their preferred shippers. *NOTE - this should not be considered legal advice nor a legal analysis of the policy and/or exclusions. Edited March 13, 2018 by Red84 spidey300, themegoguy, RLR001 and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Red84 said: I'm sorry your property was damaged by the framer and I hope you can recover from him. The exclusion from Collect Insure is however clearly listed in the policy. Home | What We Insure | Exclusions Exclusions to our coverage Government seizure or destruction of property War and nuclear hazards Gradual deterioration such as fading, creasing or denting Nesting, infestation or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by insects, rodents or other animals Dampness or dryness of atmosphere Changes in or extremes of temperature other than fire Fraudulent, dishonest or criminal acts Voluntary parting with covered property Loss or damage while being worked on by you or others working on your behalf Mysterious disappearance This is not a complete list of exclusions and exclusions can vary by policy." Presumably this exclusion is there because of the uncertainty about what collect insure would be insuring. They don't know the quality of the framer, or the comic grader, or restorer, etc. Or if someone wanted to press their own books any damage resulting from that process would not be covered. If you look at their shipping protections they provide coverage for shipping USPS and FedEx but do not cover UPS. I would assume that is because they have found that UPS was more likely to damage or lose property. They've done a cost/benefit analysis and determined their preferred shippers. *NOTE - this should not be considered legal advice nor a legal analysis of the policy and/or exclusions. And here I've thought how lucky US collectors were to have CIS. Now I know why they wouldn't be allowed to operate in Canada. What a sham! CIS - we insure your collectibles, until they are lost or damaged Edited March 13, 2018 by comicwiz ThothAmon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS Posted March 13, 2018 Author Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, comicwiz said: You assume you are going to get a TPG like CGC to admit they screwed-up. Businesses are amoral, and don't fess up or admit the truth if it means exposing them to liability. An insurer paying out the claim and going after the third-party is how it's ordinarily handled. Exactly this. CIS should cover this type of loss. It's expected when buying art that one will frame it. Further, it's expected when you buy a comprehensive policy that an insurer will protect you from likely and expected issues. Getting your art frame would be one IMHO. Edited March 13, 2018 by JS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeCrush Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) Personally, I just recommend going through your main homeowner policy and just get the appropriate riders to get the proper coverage amount. Thats what I did and I was made 100% whole when we had our house fire. I had 100% of my money in just under 45 days and it was a SIGNIFICANT loss value wise. The great thing about riders is they are specifically tailored to exactly what you own, thus its spelled out exactly what is covered. Edited March 13, 2018 by OrangeCrush RLR001 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newshane Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, OrangeCrush said: Personally, I just recommend going through your main homeowner policy and just get the appropriate riders to get the proper coverage amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeCrush Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, newshane said: Its a little more expensive than your separate collectors insurance, but given all of the horror stories I have heard over the years in regards to insurance, its absolutely worth the piece of mind. I also have had 2 losses in regards to photography equipment over the last 15 years (one while I was in Rome and one while I was in Costa Rica), both which were well over $20,000 losses and just like the fire, both claims were paid in whole in a timely manner. I couldn't possibly be happier in regards to how much I spend on insurance and the overall level of care I have gotten with my insurance company over the years. Again, the piece of mind it gives is worth every last penny in my book. Edited March 13, 2018 by OrangeCrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey 62 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, JS said: Exactly this. CIS should cover this type of loss. It's expected when buying art that one will frame it. Further, it's expected when you buy a comprehensive policy that an insurer will protect you from likely and expected issues. Getting your art frame would be one IMHO. ? I don't know how that is. Are there stats that back that up? It is a shame that your art was damaged, but to basically say that framing is what everyone does is a bit of a big umbrella to put over collectors. Especially if it is comic art pages. That is why they have portfolios, so that people can store their art in different ways. Edited March 13, 2018 by Spidey 62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newshane Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 1 hour ago, OrangeCrush said: Its a little more expensive than your separate collectors insurance, but given all of the horror stories I have heard over the years in regards to insurance, its absolutely worth the piece of mind. I also have had 2 losses in regards to photography equipment over the last 15 years (one while I was in Rome and one while I was in Costa Rica), both which were well over $20,000 losses and just like the fire, both claims were paid in whole in a timely manner. I couldn't possibly be happier in regards to how much I spend on insurance and the overall level of care I have gotten with my insurance company over the years. Again, the piece of mind it gives is worth every last penny in my book. I will look into adding a rider to my home insurance. State Farm has been fantastic over the years. I've been rolling with CIS for the last few years because it seemed like a cheaper, legit option. Everyone here has always backed them up...until now. Disconcerting to say the least. My only advice is: READ AND UNDERSTAND YOUR POLICIES! themegoguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Mcknowitall Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 13 hours ago, Red84 said: I'm sorry your property was damaged by the framer and I hope you can recover from him. The exclusion from Collect Insure is however clearly listed in the policy. Home | What We Insure | Exclusions Exclusions to our coverage Government seizure or destruction of property War and nuclear hazards Gradual deterioration such as fading, creasing or denting Nesting, infestation or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by insects, rodents or other animals Dampness or dryness of atmosphere Changes in or extremes of temperature other than fire Fraudulent, dishonest or criminal acts Voluntary parting with covered property Loss or damage while being worked on by you or others working on your behalf Mysterious disappearance This is not a complete list of exclusions and exclusions can vary by policy." Presumably this exclusion is there because of the uncertainty about what collect insure would be insuring. They don't know the quality of the framer, or the comic grader, or restorer, etc. Or if someone wanted to press their own books any damage resulting from that process would not be covered. If you look at their shipping protections they provide coverage for shipping USPS and FedEx but do not cover UPS. I would assume that is because they have found that UPS was more likely to damage or lose property. They've done a cost/benefit analysis and determined their preferred shippers. *NOTE - this should not be considered legal advice nor a legal analysis of the policy and/or exclusions. The bold exclusion is subject to interpretation, at the very least. The language is purposely vague, and I would question what is meant by 'others working on your behalf". FedEx works on your behalf. The hotel works on your behalf. The U.S. mail works on your behalf. While the reasonable expectation of activation of the particular clause would be if an untrained family member or friend without an ongoing business entity that is involved in the work being requested damaged the item it would surely be denied; not so for an ongoing enterprise that is licensed and insured for the expected task and performing the duties on your behalf in the ordinary course of business, within their business expertise. 1st question: Is the person that has experienced the loss in the same State as the entity? 2nd question: Was the damage caused by a non-qualified employee of the entity? 3rd question: Was the damage secondary damage due to a primary event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sd2416 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 2 hours ago, OrangeCrush said: Its a little more expensive than your separate collectors insurance, but given all of the horror stories I have heard over the years in regards to insurance, its absolutely worth the piece of mind. I also have had 2 losses in regards to photography equipment over the last 15 years (one while I was in Rome and one while I was in Costa Rica), both which were well over $20,000 losses and just like the fire, both claims were paid in whole in a timely manner. I couldn't possibly be happier in regards to how much I spend on insurance and the overall level of care I have gotten with my insurance company over the years. Again, the piece of mind it gives is worth every last penny in my book. Didnt work for me. Farmers insurance wanted to give me pennies on the dollar. RLR001 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red84 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 51 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said: The bold exclusion is subject to interpretation, at the very least. The language is purposely vague, and I would question what is meant by 'others working on your behalf". FedEx works on your behalf. The hotel works on your behalf. The U.S. mail works on your behalf. While the reasonable expectation of activation of the particular clause would be if an untrained family member or friend without an ongoing business entity that is involved in the work being requested damaged the item it would surely be denied; not so for an ongoing enterprise that is licensed and insured for the expected task and performing the duties on your behalf in the ordinary course of business, within their business expertise. 1st question: Is the person that has experienced the loss in the same State as the entity? 2nd question: Was the damage caused by a non-qualified employee of the entity? 3rd question: Was the damage secondary damage due to a primary event? We will have to agree to disagree. I think "while being worked on" is pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Don't want to quote anyone, but the vagueness could 57 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said: The bold exclusion is subject to interpretation, at the very least. The language is purposely vague, and I would question what is meant by 'others working on your behalf". FedEx works on your behalf. The hotel works on your behalf. The U.S. mail works on your behalf. While the reasonable expectation of activation of the particular clause would be if an untrained family member or friend without an ongoing business entity that is involved in the work being requested damaged the item it would surely be denied; not so for an ongoing enterprise that is licensed and insured for the expected task and performing the duties on your behalf in the ordinary course of business, within their business expertise. 1st question: Is the person that has experienced the loss in the same State as the entity? 2nd question: Was the damage caused by a non-qualified employee of the entity? 3rd question: Was the damage secondary damage due to a primary event? I would go one further to say the "vagueness" could be used find negligence even if it's a trained professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Mcknowitall Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 20 minutes ago, Red84 said: We will have to agree to disagree. I think "while being worked on" is pretty clear. It is not so much any disagreement at all with you, as it is questions. It is a matter of insurance law. Without going to much into claims litigation, if 2 interpretations are reasonable, then the writer will normally be the payupper, because the writer could have made the position clear, and in failing to do so, owes some wampum to somebody. The questions I presented all have a bearing on the claim, and what other laws may apply; for instance interstate commerce, etc. I admittedly did not read the contract signed for the particular person that is seeking to be reimbursed, but I did do some research on other contracts by this entity. the same unclear language clause exists. 'while worked on" is not the standard to be met for a denial. There is also the matter of whether it was secondary damage caused by a primary event...as an example, it is being framed and an incident having nothing to do with the act of framing causes the damage. The other question reaches to the entity that allowed the person that worked on the framing assigned a person to do the work that is trained and qualified for the assigned task and/or was supervised by an expert. This is pretty standard stuff in the insurance claims world. It is also pretty standard stuff for the insurance company to answer "no". Until challenged. alxjhnsn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VintageComics Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 8 hours ago, comicwiz said: And here I've thought how lucky US collectors were to have CIS. Now I know why they wouldn't be allowed to operate in Canada. What a sham! CIS - we insure your collectibles, until they are lost or damaged Isn't understanding your policy just as important as having a policy? If their rules are outlined a head of time the policy owner needs to bear some responsibility. The main reason CIS doens't operate in Canada is because insurance regulations vary from province to province. 5 hours ago, JS said: Exactly this. CIS should cover this type of loss. It's expected when buying art that one will frame it. Further, it's expected when you buy a comprehensive policy that an insurer will protect you from likely and expected issues. Getting your art frame would be one IMHO. Why would an insurer for the art owner be responsible for the negligence of someone who is framing your art? Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the person / company handling the art (in this case the framing company)? While I understand how everyone feels about insurance (it's great until you're NOT covered) and insurance policy is not a 'catch all' for everything that could possibly go wrong. They have a service they offer (which is generally clearly outlined) but they also have a responsibility to remain profitable. Insurance companies can't remain profitable by just covering 'everything'. themegoguy and spidey300 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Mcknowitall Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 26 minutes ago, comicwiz said: Don't want to quote anyone, but the vagueness could I would go one further to say the "vagueness" could be used find negligence even if it's a trained professional. Thus the reason for question #2. Things are not always what they seem in the insurance claims world. There would also be an issue of subrogating involved with #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnkurJ Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 So sorry this happened! Has the frame company accepted any fault or offer to pay for what was damaged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Mcknowitall Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Just now, VintageComics said: Isn't understanding your policy just as important as having a policy? If their rules are outlined a head of time the policy owner needs to bear some responsibility. The main reason CIS doens't operate in Canada is because insurance regulations vary from province to province. Why would an insurer for the art owner be responsible for the negligence of someone who is framing your art? Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the person / company handling the art (in this case the framing company)? While I understand how everyone feels about insurance (it's great until you're NOT covered) and insurance policy is not a 'catch all' for everything that could possibly go wrong. They have a service they offer (which is generally clearly outlined) but they also have a responsibility to remain profitable. Insurance companies can't remain profitable by just covering 'everything'. Except the coverage should and must be consistent and not subject to another reasonable interpretation as a method of denial of a claim. In the clause highlighted, it is not a reasonable interpretation to limit what "...or others working on your behalf..." means, when at the same time hotel damage or damage by FedEx ...both examples of working on behalf of.....is covered. The clause can reasonably be interpreted as dealing with unqualified persons working on behalf of and without the knowledge of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Mcknowitall Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 On 3/12/2018 at 11:59 AM, JS said: I wanted to post a PSA about Collectibles Insurance Services (collectinsure.com) since I have previously endorsed their services and many people here use them. I am changing my position to reflect a recent loss that occurred. Long story short, my framer accidentally lost/destroyed about 10 pieces of mine when the manager went on vacation. There is video proof of the event occurring and we are taking steps to resolve the matter. I put a claim in with CIS which was ultimately was denied based on the provision of the policy related to voluntary surrender of items to a 3rd party. Many people including myself would assume that CIS would provide coverage related to framing, grading, or storing artwork. CIS provides coverage for some areas, like a hotel room (even if you aren't in it), or a convention center. They would cover art or cards en-route to a grading or framing shop, but not at the shop itself. For those that say, well shouldn't the frame shop provide coverage, yes you are absolutely correct - that is called primary coverage, and they should (and hopefully will) but ultimately CIS as my carrier should provide coverage to me, then go after the frame shop in what is known as a subrogation action. Any carrier worth their salt would do that for their insured. In fact, the entire reason for insurance is to protect an insured from these types of events. Anyway, as I said, since I have previously recommended CIS, I am now advising to steer clear as their coverage does not reflect the spirit of their written polices. I'll keep everyone posted, I am canceling my policy and likely switching to Chubb. Could you possibly post the voluntary surrender of items to a third party clause in your policy? Also, the accidental breakage clause, if you can. Any language that states it would not be covered in the framing shop itself would also be of help. The point being, the policy is read as a whole, not a pick and choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
