The terms and conditions of a property insurance policy remain a
mystery to many. One of the critical aspects of an insurance policy
is the co-insurance clause. If present, it affects the amount
payable in the event of a partial or total loss.
In broad terms, co-insurance under a property policy is defined
as the "sharing of risk between an insurer and the insured...
normally expressed as a percentage."1 If a policy is subject
to a co-insurance requirement, this means that the policy owner
must satisfy the specified criteria in the event of a loss claim.
Most claims are for partial loss only; therefore, insuring for less
than 100% of the asset value may be advantageous in reducing annual
premiums. However, be forewarned: in the event of a total loss,
insuring 100% of the asset value is the only means to get full loss
compensation (less the applicable deductible). Otherwise, the
policy limit will apply.
A simple example of calculating the requirement for property
coverage, with a lower co-insurance amount is as follows:
Your property is currently valued (building and all
contents) at $900,000 at replacement value; and
Your co-insurance requirement is stipulated to be 80% of the
Based on the above, you are required to insure your property
and pay corresponding premiums for at least $720,000 in replacement
coverage. This would allow for full compensation on losses claimed
(up to the limits of the policy).
The obvious question is – what happens if I insure for
less than this amount?
The answer is that you will face a co-insurance penalty. The
following formula illustrates a scenario when the co-insurance
requirement is not met. In this case, your insurer will only pay
the percentage of your total loss up to the value of your insurance
Using the same example, assume you purchased $650,000 of
building and contents insurance and you suffered a partial loss of
property. Damages will cost $300,000 in repairs and you have a
$1,000 deductible. Your insurer will calculate the amount that they
owe you as follows:
$650,000 insurance carried over $720,000 insurance required
(as calculated above) = 90.3% loss reimbursement.
90.3% x $300,000 loss claimed minus $1,000 deductible =
$269,900 payable by the insurance company.
Therefore, you personally pay for $29,100 of your $300,000
partial loss claim because your policy did not carry sufficient
insurance (plus your $1,000 deductible).
Now, if you purchase the insurance required and suffer a
$300,000 loss, you satisfy the co-insurance clause of having at
least 80% coverage on the $900,000 value of your insured property.
Therefore, your only financial responsibility is the $1,000
Understanding the impact of insufficient insurance coverage is
invaluable in setting the right terms for your policy and avoiding
costly penalties should you need to make a claim. The level at
which you should insure your assets is a decision between you and
your insurance broker. Your accountant can assist by providing
important information on decisions relating to your insurance
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
The recent Preliminary Issue decision in Walsh and Echelon (FSCO A15-007448, August 31, 2016) confirms that an economic loss does not need to be demonstrated in order to be entitled to attendant care benefits.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Policyholders recently won a key victory at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. as the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of a standard form...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).