Easy examples of the kinds of “glass” that would be affected by the two provisions are the windows in a building and the display of crystal in a gift shop. But it is all the varieties of glass in between that has us in a perplexed state. Consider the dressing room mirrors in a clothing shop, interior partitions in an office, one-way glass in a clinic, glass in picture frames, glass shelving, glass in aquariums, glass table tops, and so on. One of our companies tells us that in the case of mirrors, they do not consider them subject to the “glass” limitations. Should we rely on this? Would other companies apply the same interpretation?

Oregon Subscriber

A

Dictionaries offer essentially two definitions of “glass;” the scientific one describing an amorphous, inorganic substance that is usually transparent or translucent, and the everyday one applying to items made of glass such as mirrors, tumblers, and spectacles. The insured is free to choose either but the result will be the same. Any one of the items you list as questionable constitutes “glass” or “glassware” in the opinion of the editors and they are all, consequently, subject to the policy's limitations.

In short, the coverage of glass hinges on the answer to one question. Does the glass constitute a part of the building? If so, there is coverage, but recovery is limited to $100 per pane or plate and $500 per occurrence. This holds true whether the glass is affixed to the building in a frame in an exterior wall or an interior wall; affixed to the surface of an interior wall; or whether it is see-through, one-way, or reflective (as in mirrors).

Breakage of glass that represents personal property is covered only if caused by the “specified causes of loss” or by breakage of building glass. However, there is no per pane or per occurrence limit. Glass table tops come under this category, as do hand mirrors, glass in picture frames, and so on.