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.
No comments:
Post a Comment