The coverage for “property removed,” which covers “covered property against direct loss from any cause while being removed from a premises endangered by a Peril Insured Against and for no more than 30 days while removed” does not apply in this situation. The property is not “endangered by” a peril insured against—the peril insured against has already occurred. The purpose of this coverage is to provide protection when there is the possibility property will be damaged if left unmoved. A current example of this is the fires currently burning in Florida. If a homeowner, whose dwelling is in the path of a fire, moves as much personal property as he or she can to another location, but, while at the other location it is damaged by a flood (remember, from any cause), then the insurer will pay for the flood damage so long as the 30 days has not elapsed.

And, in this instance, the policy's condition for “no benefit to bailee” applies. The drycleaner is a bailee—that is, one that performs a service on property of another for a fee. The homeowners policy is not there to relieve the drycleaner from performing his or her work correctly. So, if the drycleaner was the one damaging the property in an attempt to clean it, then he or she is responsible for rectifying the situation.

But having said that, cleaning the soot-damaged clothing should have been part of the repair process. If the insurer paid to have the clothing cleaned, and the cleaning could not be performed satisfactorily, then the insurer owes the actual cash value (or replacement cost, if the insured carries the coverage).