RIMS 2018

LMI at RIMS 2018. Left to right, Steve Manning, Director; Murray Rowley, Head of LMI Mining; self; and Shirley Shi, LMI Forensics Division.

Four of us from LMI Group have traveled to San Antonio in the US for the 68th annual RIMS (Risk Management Society) Conference.

Several of us have been going for a number of years to stay up to date with our learnings and to gather ideas on ways we can provide a better service to our customers.

While I have been privileged to present at the conference, this is our first year having an LMI booth in the Market Place.  Today was the first day of the conference proper and we are heartened by the reaction we have generated.

Very early on, a broker said that the best thing she will take away from the conference is our new book on Business Interruption tailored to the US style wordings. Then to finish the day, we had a company spend over 1.5 hours at our stand understanding our on line products of BIcalculator.com, PolicyComparison.com, RiskCoach and ContinuityCoach.com. The CEO of the firm ended with the words, “these products have made the conference for me”. What a wonderful way to end day 1 of the trade show.

Others during the day constantly commented that they had never seen such a great suite of services to support insurance brokers.

We took turns on the stand so we could attend sessions and a couple of us also helped pack care packages helping the Soldiers’ Angels group.

Tonight, we have been invited out by Gallaghers when they heard we were free. What a kind gesture on their part.

All in all, while day 1 is far from over, it has been a promising start for our push into the massive US market.

Read Me View comments

Take care on reducing coverages

As the team at PolicyComparison.com go through new policies and update, they bring to my attention any changes that gives them concern.

What is being noticed is, at the same time rates are increasing in many classes of general insurance,  some new and/or broader in their effect exclusions are being introduced and that these could easily be missed.

One such change has been the introduction of a sexual molestation exclusion in a Medical Malpractice policy. This could leave an Insured and their broker exposed if the change was not first identified and then communicated to the Insured.

I therefore continue to urge brokers to use LMI PolicyComparison.com each and every renewal and when you quote new business, run your eye over the report. It saves you heaps of time and protects your client and your own professional indemnity exposure.

The same goes if you hear of a new policy. LMI PolicyComparison.com hold a comparison on the site between the old and new policies for a minimum of 3 months and we highlight the areas of change. Another time saving benefit of the service.

Finally the team produce a list of changed policies every month so you can keep abreast of the changes in the market. Typically, this runs at over 1,000 policies a year. If you are not on the mailing list for the LMI PolicyComparison.com update please let me know and I will have you added immediately.

Read Me 6 Comments

Blog Question: new exclusion on professional indemnity policies in respect of non-compliant building materials

Engineering Clown Holding Rolled Up Blueprint In A Depiction Of Unstable And Dodgy Building Practices

I recently received this email:

Hi Allan,

Further to your posts regarding issues with shoddy building products, unfortunately insurers are now seeking to exclude this risk in a very heavy handed manner.

In particular, exclusions to professional indemnity insurance for building surveyors, architects etc that removes all cover irrespective of fault.

The below clause for example is extremely onerous & removes all cover even in instances of counterfeit products, where the surveyor has been wronged just as much as anyone else. 

‘We will not cover the insured for loss, defence costs, legal representation costs or other amounts in respect of any claim, investigation or liability arising out of or in any way  connected with a Non compliant or Non conforming Building Product, or the approval, the use or installation of a Building Product in a manner which is Non compliant or Non conforming.’

Surely in these sorts of instances,  it is in the public interest to ensure that building professionals have insurance that responds to claims against them.

I was wondering what your thoughts are on this ?

Thanks, John [surname and email provided]


Hi John

This is a very real and complex problem. One which I can see both sides and have sympathy for both positions.

On the one hand, it looks like an insurer who sees a bush fire or cyclone on the horizon then writes to their customers cancelling the risk. This is not good for the insurance industry but we have done it before with issues such as terrorism, Y2K and pandemics. This, of course, does not mean it is necessarily right.

The difference between property insurance and professional indemnity is that the property policy covers damage during the period of insurance and if the risk materialises and results in loss or damage during the period of insurance then the insurer bears the loss. A Professional Indemnity policy is a ‘claims made and notified policy’ and as such this allows insurers to change their risk appetite each renewal and limit risks that are emerging but have not yet fully materialised.

The Grenfell fire certainly has brought this issue to front of mind, and along with the fires in Australia and the Middle East helped identify the number of buildings globally with the problem of combustible cladding.

With professional indemnity, it is my experience the limits are often way too low when compared to say public or products liability and the risks professionals take on.

Therefore, I would have thought that this genuine risk could have been addressed by either a sub-limit and or higher premium for those involved in this industry rather than making the policy a Clayton’s policy, that is a policy you have when you do not have a policy.

Having said that, I do not think the insurance industry should be picking up the tab for professionals or builders who have knowingly used or allowed such products to be used, to the determent of the consumer and or to feather their own nest.

All professionals need to do their job properly. Lord Atkin rightfully set the position that we still use today in Australia when he said:

At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of “culpa,” is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot, in a practical world, be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question

Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932 SC (HL) 31 (26 May 1932).

What the exclusion is effectively doing is saying to these professionals that there is a very real personal risk to you if you allow non-compliant building materials.

This very real risk is one that I would not like to take on myself either as a professional or as an underwriter. As an underwriter I would need some comfort from the Insured that they have not knowingly allowed the products to be used. If there were allowed knowingly then this I would suggest would be a known circumstance that would need to be declared at next renewal in any event.

At the same time, building owners, whether they be commercial, industrial or domestic, may be left holding the bag if their own insurer does not cover the replacement which is in itself not covered and nor does the builder’s nor the professionals involved.

There are so many areas in the claims we are handling at LMI Group where we are finding non-compliant building materials. These include:

  • Electrical wiring and cabling,
  • Electrical switches,
  • Rain heads and some other plumbing fittings,
  • Products containing asbestos, and of course,
  • Combustible cladding and or insulation.

At this stage I do not believe the exclusion is universal and each insurer will be making their own decision on it.

I hope this helps.




Read Me View comments

A disturbing response to my post today on buying business insurance direct – Get Ready for a Manning Rant!

In response to my earlier post today I received this email from a distressed broker.

Thanks yet again Allan for your insights.

Yes; it is extremely distressing to note the upsurge in the so-called ‘direct’ market influence.

I’m going to be very blunt now & tell you about an experience I’ve had during the last week.

The son of a very loyal commercial client of 30 years standing spoke to me recently about his need for Liability insurance.

He is a refrigeration & air conditioning supplier/installer/maintenance technician.

Long story short; the quotes I prepared were between $2,300 right thru to $13,500. (These are what I expected from experience. Maybe not the $13,500 though!)

Yes; of course there are many nuanced coverage differences that I went to great lengths explaining to him.

End result??? He went with XYZ [insurer name withheld] of all insurers, for $575 total premium!

Yes; you read this correctly.

Is the coverage adequate?? I very much doubt it; but there you go…price wins out.

I pray he has no issues moving forward.

Just wanted to share this with you.

Take care – Gary.

Note I have not named the insurer but it is one that has featured in my blogs several times for questionable behaviour in both Australia and New Zealand and one that has advised buyers that they can purchase their home policy in lieu of a strata policy. Enough said.

Despite my attention naturally being focused on LMI’s Emergency response to Cyclone Debbie and the many major claims we have been entrusted with already, I could not get this situation out of my mind. I am sure it is not an isolated case.

I wonder what the refrigeration & air conditioning supplier/installer/maintenance technician would think of a potential customer who elected to purchase a new or even second hand unit when he the expert new that it was a load of rubbish and would fail when it came to the crunch! Yet this same person does not question why a policy that he is relying on to protect his business, his income stream, his superannuation and perhaps the mortgage over his home can be 25% of the price and still be as good!

Has the client considered the basics such as goods in Care Custody and Control? Obviously not as the policy selected provides NO cover for most items under this heading, according to page 10 of the policy.

This client has NO cover as a tenant for damage caused to the landlords building, NO cover for any temporary site under his care custody or control, NO cover for employees property. With the brokers policy he would have full cover to the limit of liability. For vehicles nearby in his care custody and control, say a client drops of a van with a request to fit a refrigerated unit. NO cover. Under the broker policy, full cover to the limit of the policy.

With regards to customers’ goods he now has $25,000 where as with the broker policy he would have $250,000 as a minimum.

So what happens if this Insured has a claim. With the broker he has the advice of the broker and $25,000 cover for claims preparation costs from an expert. With his current policy he has no cover for claims preparation. He is completely on his own.

Of course: “it will never happen to Me!” is what so many people think. Now let me tell you of a true claim I handled a few years ago. The insured just happened to be a refrigeration mechanic. A fire broke out in his premises and he had a vehicle in for fitting, yes you guessed it a refrigeration unit. The fire started in the truck and the forensic investigator said the refrigeration mechanic was to blame. Trouble was he had a policy just like this with no cover for vehicles or goods in care custody and control. I learned about the case about 9 months after the incident and I proved the refrigeration mechanic was not to blame at all. I took my report into the lawyers acting for the truck insurer and they agreed to withdraw their demand. I thought it was a great result and rushed out to advise the client only to learn that after his marriage broke up due to stress caused by the fire and the demand which threatened to mean they would lose their family home, the Insured had hung himself the night before. This is not made up. It is a true story that upsets me to this day. With a good policy from day one, this really nice man would have had the protection of a meaningful insurance policy, the family would not have had all the stress and the tragedy and guilt of losing their husband and father.

This is why I push so hard for people not to buy insurance on price alone. You are a bloody idiot if you do. I cannot make it plainer.

Back to this “cheap” policy. I have only just got started. Let us take a claim for the costs of Cleaning Up, Nullifying Removing etc pollutants following a sudden accident release. Under the broker policy he has cover for the full limit of the policy, under the one he has selected NO cover.

There is no cover for loading and unloading. Broker policy full cover to the full limit of liability.

The broker policy provides a right to pay out the full limit of liability. The “cheap” policy does not.

If the Insured incurs their own legal defence costs the “cheap” policy has a maximum of half the limit of liability, the broker policy has the full limit.

The same goes for legal costs to represent the insured at a coronial inquest. That is half the limit for the “cheap” policy, full cover for the broker policy.

The broker policy covers the Insured’s wages attending a hearing or trial. The “cheap” policy does not.

I have not even got started yet on the exclusions such as hot works, such an important thing for this occupation. In fact the “cheap” policy has more exclusions than any other liability wording I have ever read.

Another big one that is even wider than the hot works exclusion is one that states:  Policy excludes any failure to comply with any Commonwealth State Territory or Local Government law or any safety requirement obligation or regulation imposed by any other relevant authority. This is a very broad exclusion and if it were not for a failure at some time in safety then you would be unlikely to need a liability policy. If the client takes safety procedures with the same cavalier approach as they do with their insurance, this story is going to have a very bad ending.  When it does it will be Brand Insurance that is painted as the villain.  By the way, this new exclusion only came in from January 1, 2017. I would be interested how much notice the insurer has given to renewing clients of this major change.

I do not want to bore the reader but I am sure you get the picture.

But before I go, I would add a couple more points. I am not sure what the limit of coverage is for the “cheap” policy. My guess it is half or even a third of the broker policy.

Nearly there readers! I question the role of the regulator and government in all of this. Why do we allow the public to purchase a policy that really offers scant protection. What of the customers of this business person who think that he has liability cover if something does go wrong. They too are going to be in for just as big a surprise and again Brand Insurance will suffer.

All this is why I have started a campaign to Make Insurance Great Again. This “cheap” policy is certainly NOT great. I would not recommend it to anyone.

I wonder if this new client of the “cheap” insurer would understand what I have just written here?. More importantly, I bet the call centre person who sold the policy wouldn’t.

Brokers out there, please note this “cheap” insurer is on LMI PolicyComparison.com and if you are confronted with this sort of situation, you can print off a comparison of the features and benefits in seconds showing the vast differences between the policy you recommend and theirs. This may help explain the huge difference in price that some new entrants offer to win new business.

I end with my often heard plea to the business owners and managers out there. Insurance is NOT about price. It is about getting the right ADVICE to provide good PROTECTION to your business and to you and your family. At the end of the day so much comes back to you as a personal risk that you are accepting when you get the wrong insurance.

There endeth tonight’s rant.

Read Me View comments

Buying insurance on Price: Who would be that stupid to recommend that? Perhaps some who should know better!

Yesterday afternoon, Prof Allan Fels was complaining about the difference in price between home and contents insurance policies and advocating people shop around each year. While he is quoted as explaining there are differences between policies, the fact of the matter is that you typically get what you pay for, but it is not easy for the consumer to understand the complexities of the policies, nor the claims service until it is perhaps too late.

Insurance is one of those products that if you purchase the wrong one, it can have detrimental life changing effects. For many people, their home is their biggest single asset. They may have a mortgage over it. A single event can destroy the home and then what. Yes you saved a few hundred dollars but one policy covers you and the other does not and that apparent saving of say $500, just cost you the entire value of your home and contents.

Even if you get the claim paid by the same company, what is it worth to have one company pay it quickly with minimum fuss, allowing you your choice of repairer, showing great empathy and the other one drags it out and moves you from being a customer to a cost centre. Most would gladly pay 10 times the saving to have the first company look after their claim, but that is a simple decision after the claim. Before hand, too many focus on price as it will never happen to me.

I thought I would just have a quick look at any differences between the two most often quoted policies in the survey. Coles and GIO using LMI PolicyComparison.com.  There are two versions here to use. The top one is a detailed comparison in text and the second is using icons. They both show differences in the products which is not surprising.

Policy_Comparison full GIO v Coles

Policy_Comparison icons GIO v Coles

I also attach a comparison of the claims service from LMI ClaimsComparison.com. Here I have included Allianz as well.

Claims Comparison, Allianz, GIO, Coles

Neither of these sites compare prices as to me that is a long way third after the quality of the coverage and the claims service provided.

I also went on to a non LMI product site which showed what customers thought of the Coles service for home and contents. I cannot vouch for the fairness or accuracy of this site but what is shown here is not pretty.

The whole issue is not simple. In one of the price comparisons quoted by Prof Fels, Allianz comes up the least expensive. This does not mean they have an inferior product. Generally their policies are very good as is their claims service but I for one would never ever ever look at buying insurance on price alone.

What is missing from the Fells argument is the issue loyalty. You would expect that if two people made the same claim and it was grey. If one had been a loyal customer for 5 plus years with a claims free record an insurer would be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and pay the claim than someone who clearly showed no loyalty chopping and changing each year. If Insurers move away from factoring in loyalty and claims experience then they deserve what they get.

Home and contents and car insurance are one thing, when you move to business insurance and particularly professional lines such as professional indemnity and directors and officers insurance, my strong advice is do not shop around on price. Choose an insurer you trust and stick with them. Sustainability of insurance is of paramount importance with these products.

The whole issue is complex, that is why I use an insurance broker even though I know just a little bit about insurance for everything, including my home and contents. Even then, if my broker only came to me recommending I chose a product on price alone, I would change brokers. My broker, does not do that and so I stay with them as they know my business, my home, and my risk appetite. I trust them and they me and I treat them as a trusted adviser.

Sorry for the rant but having handled claims for nearly 50 years, articles the one I read yesterday cause me to see red! They may get a headline but as an economist, I would have thought some consideration would have been given to the cost to our communities, state and federal economies if the wrong insurance is taken out.

Key lesson for any accountant, economist or consumer: Insurance is all about PROTECTION, not price!

I for one wished as much emphasis was made on the difference in petrol prices which is a homogeneous product, delivered well self served, and yet has massive differences. Explain that one for me Mr Fells. When it comes to insurance “oils ain’t oils”.

I am even bold enough to modify Mr Buffett’s often quoted phrase to Price is what you pay, Value is what you NEED when it comes to insurance. 

Read Me View comments

New research confirms my intuition which in turn prompted the creation of websites

I have always felt that the emphasis on price when it comes to general insurance was just plain wrong!

As many readers would have heard me say, no one remembers the price when a claim occurs. The Insured is looking for a top of the range policy that provides genuine protection for the loss they have just sustained and a claims service that provides fast, honest service.

It was therefore pleasing to see the results from research conducted by Macquarie released at a conference put on by Lloyd’s where they put up this slide setting out the major factors influencing buyers.

This clearly shows that the product features and benefits and claims service are right up there with price.

Hence, it reinforces the value of LMI PolicyComparison.com and LMI Claims Comparison.com to insurance advisers. Neither of these sites examines price.

Equally important is the need to have someone fair looking after the client’s interests at claims time to provide genuine assistance to them so that they appreciate the value of their insurance program and that is where claims preparers provide an important role in client retention and reestablishing brand insurance.

The ongoing focus on price is just plain stupid and in the long term no one will win, insurer, broker, or insured.

Our latest initiatives of the Mansfield Awards, being undertaken in conjunction with InsuranceNEWS, which focuses on recognising the best of the best in claims and LMI BASIC which as its full name, the Business Assets Sum Insured Calculator, assists in getting the sum insured on business assets right are clearly aligned with the research.

LMI BASIC of course compliments LMI BIcalculator.com and our Under Insurance Calculator in ensuring the sums insured are adequate when ‘it” happens.

I congratulate Lloyd’s for sharing this important research.

Read Me View comments

Warning – where parts are not available on a machinery break down policy

Reactive Maintenance ConceptA broker contacted me concerned that the policy which one of his staff had arranged contained a restriction in a case where a piece of equipment has suffered a machinery breakdown and is unable to be repaired, as the parts are no longer available, and the policy limited the Insurers liability to the value of the parts if they were available.

The client was expecting a replacement piece of equipment to the nearest modern equivalent.

As the fire section of most business pack and home and contents policies are now issued on a reinstatement replacement condition, it is easy for us to fall into the trap of believing that this more generous basis of settlement than the basic principle of indemnity is available in other classes of general insurance as well.

As this broker and their client learned, this is not necessarily the case with machinery breakdown policies, whether they be standalone policies or part of a business pack.

Doing a search on PolicyComparison.com, I found that around half the policies issued in Australia have a restriction in the Machinery Breakdown coverage that limits the cost of repairs to the machine, where parts are no longer available to the cost of the parts if they were available. This in itself can create a conflict for how can you price something that is no longer available? Putting that aside, as with all general insurance products, it is important to understand the coverage afforded by the policy and make a decision on the needs of the Insured.

For the benefit of readers, I attach a product feature comparison on this issue taken from PolicyComparison.com machinery-comparison-from-policycomparison

The last point I would make is that brokers who are a member of a cluster group, should not be lulled into believing their policy is necessarily superior in this area as your policies may well contain the same restriction.

Read Me View comments

Comparisons now available at PolicyComparison New Zealand

PCI homeComparisons now available at PolicyComparison

As a service to our valued subscribers, we list below the policy comparisons that have been added to

New Zealand’s premier policy comparison website in the last month. You can now view these comparisons at


Lumley General – NZ Machinery Breakdown Policy – LUM1074-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ Licensed Building Practitioners (LBP) Professional Indemnity Employees Protection Liability – LUM1532-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ Contractors Plant and Machinery Policy – LUM1012-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ Contractors Plant, Machinery and Tools Policy – LUM1011-01_1215
Lumley General – NZ Transit, Erection and Testing Policy – LUM1089-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ On Site Single Risk Contract Works Policy – LUM1088-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ Machinery Breakdown Policy – Loss of Profits (Revenue Wording) – LUM1076-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ Machine Breakdown Policy – Additional Cost of Working – LUM1077-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ Trustees Liability Insurance Policy – LUM1547-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ Legal Prosecution Defence Policy – LUM1535-1_1215
Lumley General – NZ Management Shield Combined Liability Policy – LUM1549-1_1215
Zurich – NZ Security and Privacy Protection Insurance – PCUS-009848_V5_0215
Chubb (NZ) Business Travel Insurance Policy – CHUBBNZ14-16_0616


We take this opportunity to remind you that theLMI PolicyComparison website offers more than policy

comparisons. Visit the site to view our extensive policy library, Standard & Poors’ financial strength ratings,

a list of alternative markets, and more.

Should you have any queries, please feel free to contact us. A Contact Us button is provided for this purpose

on the site.

Kind Regards,

The LMI PolicyComparison Team

Read Me View comments

Comparisons now available at PolicyComparison


As a service to our valued subscribers, we list below the policy comparisons that have been added to

Australia’s premier policy comparison website in the last month. You can now view these comparisons at


Allianz Farm Pack – POL065BAFI_0416
APIA Boat Insurance – AP2679_0516
APIA Car Advantage Insurance with Roadside Assist – AP02571_0516A
APIA Caravan Insurance – AP02576_0516
APIA Home and Contents Extra Insurance with Home Assist – AP02655_0516A
APIA Home and Contents Insurance with Home Assist – AP02580_0516A
APIA Landlord Insurance – AP02611_0516
Brooklyn Underwriting Combined Information Technology Legal Liability Insurance – MIT_V2.1_0515
Brooklyn Underwriting Cyber Data Protect – CyberDataProtect_V2_0814
Elders Insurance (Underwriting Agency) Business Commercial Retail Industrial Insurance – QM2606_0516
eSentry Underwriting Annual (Run Off Basis) Construction Legal Liability & Professional Indemnity Policy – TMNF-CWA(RO)-POL2016-VER1_0316
eSentry Underwriting Annual (Transfer Basis) Construction Legal Liability & Professional Indemnity Policy – TMNF-CWA(T)-POL2016-VER1_0316
Hollard Insurance Co Pty Ltd Business Insurance Policy – HBIP_0516
Just Car Insurance Comprehensive Car Insurance – J01425_0914C
Pantaenius Australia Sail and Motor Yacht Insurance – SailMotorYacht_1115
QBE Insurance Australia Ltd Corporate Travel Insurance – QM184_0116
QBE Insurance Australia Ltd Farm Pack – QM7794_0516
QBE Insurance Australia Ltd Office Package – QM208_0316
QBE Insurance Australia Ltd Trades Package – QM207_0316
RACQI Boat Insurance – RTBI2_1215
RACQI Body Corporate Insurance Policy – RBC2_1215
RACQI Caravan Insurance Policy – RCVC2_1215
RACQI Household Insurance – Advanced Cover – RHHB2_1215
RACQI Motor Vehicle Insurance – RCMV2_1215
RACQI Unique Vehicle Insurance – RCMUV2_1215
Sura Owner Builder Construction Policy – SURCON-OBP1.1_0815
TIO Territory Home Insurance Essential Cover – POL889TIO_0216
TIO Territory Home Insurance Premium Cover – POL888TIO_0216
TIO Territory Landlord Insurance – POL890TIO_0216
Youi Insurance Home Insurance – Youi-Home_0516


We take this opportunity to remind you that the LMI PolicyComparison website offers more than policy

comparisons. Visit the site to view our extensive policy library, Standard & Poors’ financial strength ratings,

a list of alternative markets, and more.

Should you have any queries, please feel free to contact us. A Contact Us button is provided for this purpose

on the site.

Kind Regards,

The LMI PolicyComparison Team

Read Me 1

When is a collection a collection?

A Thesaurus and Dictionary isolated on a white background.Following my post on Friday warning on the sub-limits that apply to collections under Australian home contents insurance policies, I had a number of people write asking what constitutes a collection. One suggested that a collection is when the group of items has a combined value as a group than they would if valued separately.

While this sounds logical, the definition that would be used by an insurer (and the courts should a dispute arise) would, unless, like the New Zealand policy which had a definition of what collections meant, (in the case in question it was stamps, coins and medals). be the meaning in every day use.

A typical dictionary definition taken from the internet reads:

noun: collection; plural noun: collections
the action or process of collecting someone or something.
“the collection of data”
  • a regular removal of mail for dispatch or of refuse for disposal.
    “withdrawal of the Sunday collections”
  • an instance of collecting money in a church service or for a charity.
    “a collection is to be taken up for the Ecclesiastical Students Fund”
    synonyms: donations, contributions, gifts, subscription(s), alms;

    “a collection for the poor”
  • a sum of money raised during a church or charity collection.
    synonyms: offering, offertory, tithe

    “a church collection”
2. a group of things or people.
“a rambling collection of houses”

When I explained this the reader wrote back saying you can have a collection of rubbish and that would be caught by any sub-limit. This is quite true but in reality most collections of household rubbish would have a value that would reach even the lowest sub-limit for collections.

What the discussions with my readers did reinforce is that definition of a collection is quite wide and that care needs to be taken in selecting the coverage that best protects your or your clients’ contents and collections in particularly.

headerIf in doubt, a reminder again to either read the policy or use www.policycomparison.com to review all the policy’s features, benefits and limitations.

Read Me View comments