acf-code-field
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/propertyinsuranc/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114The exclusion for \u201cwear and tear\u201d comes from the concept and need of fortuity in an \u201call-risk\u201d insurance policy.\u00a0The 1928 \u201cAll Risks Personal Effects Floater\u201d policy was a significant step leading to the modern Open Perils or All Risk policy forms. This 1928 policy insured against \u201call risk of loss or damage\u201d and scheduled exclusions rather than covering for scheduled perils.1<\/sup> When considering yesterday\u2019s post,\u00a0Do Insurers Wrongfully Deny Claims Based Upon the Vague Wear and Tear Exclusion?<\/a><\/em>, the concept of fortuity and \u201crisk\u201d is central to the reason for the wear and tear exclusion.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In Development of Comprehensive Insurance For The Household<\/a><\/em>,2<\/sup> the author, John Pierce, noted regarding this 1928 form policy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This policy, however, did not cover insurance against every possible kind of loss, because some losses would have causes other than \u2018risk.\u2019 A risk implies a chance occurrence\u2014a fortuitous or unexpected event which results in loss.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n \u201cWear and tear of items\u201d is not a risk because, in the normal usage of items, things will wear out and break. John Pierce stated that the \u201cwear and tear\u201d exclusion, along with exclusions for \u201cinherent vice\u201d and \u201cgradual deterioration,\u201d were included in the policy list of exclusions for the purpose of \u201cmaking certain that the intended interpretation would be placed upon the words \u201call-risks.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n