He did have his wife’s PR firm notify the media and made a whole lot bigger deal out of it than it warranted. He should end up on his own naughty list!
It really doesnt seem like too much money for a santa suit. Plus, when dealing with clothing, if they lose it, they really should buy you new clothing. Why would I want to buy someone elses used clothing?? I bet its dirty.
If they lose my favorite 4 year old suit should I really be expected to find a used one on ebay?
Plus he said he was a skinny santa, I bet his suit was tailored as well.
Applying insurance principles, he should only get the value of the old suit, otherwise he would be profiting from the loss. The remedy is to be put back where you were economically. A used suit obviously has less value than a new one.
If someone totals my 5-year-old car, their ins co sure as shootin’ ain’t buyin’ me a new one ! Yes, he will have to make up the difference for the new suit, but he then owns a suit worth more, will have more years of use than the old one, etc. so he is receiving a value for his out-of-pocket cost.
Not exactly, the reason replacement cost coverage exists is because we all know that you cant realistically go out and easily find used cloths. Its not practical
You give him the value of a 5 year old altered santasuit and its worth about $20.
So now he cant buy a new one. So he really hasnt been indemnified.
Clothing is very unique in this way. It should be remidied by the contract that was signed or the language on the back of the receipt.
I agree that if there was a contract or other statement by the cleaners that they would replace new for old, that should apply, but otherwise, the principle of “no unjust enrichment” should apply. Replacement Cost is an optional Property coverage, not Liability coverage, which is what we’re dealing with here.
If you think of it as a balance sheet, he has been indemnified: in the assets column is a $20 Santa suit, he longer has the suit, but has $20., the bottom line is the same. If he receives a new $400. suit, he would show a profit.
This question has come up in our agency claims dept when a homeowner suffered damages and our insured was liable, and they were only paid ACV for their personal property. There is no replacement cost under Liability, only your own Property coverage, if you choose to pay the additional premium for it.
If “Santa” was so concerned about the suit, he should have scheduled it on his HO or Renter’s policy with RC option and a low or no deductible.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
at least he wasn’t asking for a couple of zillion dollars, like the low life bottom feeding judge/attorney in D.C. that sued the drycleaners
He did have his wife’s PR firm notify the media and made a whole lot bigger deal out of it than it warranted. He should end up on his own naughty list!
I’d be willing to bet that if he hadn’t had the media there, the cleaners would’ve tried to stiff him on the judgement…
It really doesnt seem like too much money for a santa suit. Plus, when dealing with clothing, if they lose it, they really should buy you new clothing. Why would I want to buy someone elses used clothing?? I bet its dirty.
If they lose my favorite 4 year old suit should I really be expected to find a used one on ebay?
Plus he said he was a skinny santa, I bet his suit was tailored as well.
Applying insurance principles, he should only get the value of the old suit, otherwise he would be profiting from the loss. The remedy is to be put back where you were economically. A used suit obviously has less value than a new one.
If someone totals my 5-year-old car, their ins co sure as shootin’ ain’t buyin’ me a new one ! Yes, he will have to make up the difference for the new suit, but he then owns a suit worth more, will have more years of use than the old one, etc. so he is receiving a value for his out-of-pocket cost.
Not exactly, the reason replacement cost coverage exists is because we all know that you cant realistically go out and easily find used cloths. Its not practical
You give him the value of a 5 year old altered santasuit and its worth about $20.
So now he cant buy a new one. So he really hasnt been indemnified.
Clothing is very unique in this way. It should be remidied by the contract that was signed or the language on the back of the receipt.
I agree that if there was a contract or other statement by the cleaners that they would replace new for old, that should apply, but otherwise, the principle of “no unjust enrichment” should apply. Replacement Cost is an optional Property coverage, not Liability coverage, which is what we’re dealing with here.
If you think of it as a balance sheet, he has been indemnified: in the assets column is a $20 Santa suit, he longer has the suit, but has $20., the bottom line is the same. If he receives a new $400. suit, he would show a profit.
This question has come up in our agency claims dept when a homeowner suffered damages and our insured was liable, and they were only paid ACV for their personal property. There is no replacement cost under Liability, only your own Property coverage, if you choose to pay the additional premium for it.
If “Santa” was so concerned about the suit, he should have scheduled it on his HO or Renter’s policy with RC option and a low or no deductible.
OMG – ITS A SANTA SUIT PEOPLE, YOU CLAIMS PEOPLE HAVE NO LIFE (OR HEART!)
CJ, technically you are definitely correct, I must agree with you.
OK, so let me get this straight, youre a skinny jewish guy making a claim for a $400 Santa Suit?
(adjuster calls fraud department)
LOL