A farmer friend of mine, let's call him Ron, keeps his machinery in a secure barn, approved by his insurers. Thieves still managed to break in and take a number of portable objects, such as a generator, a couple of compressors, chains saws and the like. Fortunately, Ron keeps the really valuable items in a kind of huge safe, concreted in, thick steel, totally fail-safe locks, etc. Even so, the thieves left it badly damaged in their determination to get into it.
Enter the “loss adjuster” from the insurance company, who comes up with the fatuous judgment that the damage to the supersafe safe is not covered, because “the insurance covers the contents of the shed, but that is a shed within a shed”. Ron points out that if he hadn't installed his supersafe safe, his so-called “shed within a shed”, the thieves would have taken stuff of immensely greater value, and the insurers would have had a much bigger bill.
Of course it's no use trying to present this kind of logical argument to the likes of this loss adjuster: such people are carefully lobotomised before being sent out on their missions.