Theft of Copper Not Vandalism

An unknown person stole the copper and major components from our policyholder's A/C unit. He filed a claim for vandalism; however, the policy states:

j.      Vandalism, meaning willful and malicious damage to, or destruction of, the described property.

We will not pay for loss or damage:

        (1)     To glass (other than glass building blocks) that is part of a building, structure, or an outside sign; but we will pay for loss or damage to other property caused by or resulting from breakage of glass by vandals.

        (2)     Caused by or resulting from theft, except for building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars.

Some adjusters feel we should allow for the components damaged as a result of the theft even though we do not allow for the theft. We would like your input in this as according to the policy as it appears no damages that resulted from the theft would be covered either.

North Carolina Subscriber

The loss would not be considered vandalism. Webster's defines “vandalism” as “willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property.” It doesn't appear that the theft was a malicious act of destruction but a theft of copper.

However, any damage done to the building in the process of the theft of the copper and a/c components would be covered. The a/c units could be considered part of the building.

 

 

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis