If a fire or flood destroys a high-net-worth client’s fine art collection, an insurer who pays out a claim related to the loss has an incentive to pursue subrogation. This article explores some of the issues an insurer should “canvas” before pursuing subrogation for these types of claims.
Damage to fine art can occur in a number of ways. For instance, fine art may be damaged in a natural disaster - such as a flood or a wildfire. Artwork may also be accidentally damaged because of a transportation-related incident physically damaging the art. In addition, artwork may suffer fire or smoke damage from a fire within a building. Another possibility is that the artwork suffers damage because of renovations either to the insured’s home or a neighboring property. For example, a renovation contractor may damage artwork due to vibrations or leaking water. A construction worker, moreover, may turn with a tool in his hand, or trip and fall, damaging the artwork.
One of the first things an insurer should do – during the adjustment of the claim – is determine when the loss occurred, i.e., before the loss or as a result of the loss. To make this determination, the adjuster should consider bringing in a fine art expert. If an insurer pays for a loss that occurred before the incident at issue, it may be deemed a volunteer.
Consider a claim based on a fire where the insured claims that a painting suffered by soot or smoke damage. An expert can determine a timeline with respect to whether the painting was damaged by soot resulting from a fire or, pre-loss, due to layers of nicotine that may be found in the smoker’s home.
Once the adjuster determines that the loss was caused by the fire, the adjuster should consider whether there is any subrogation potential associated with the claim. In this example, a possible target may be a construction contractor or electrician that caused the fire. However, as each of these possible targets may have a contract that involves the anti-subrogation rule and/or a waiver of subrogation clause, the adjuster should contact a subrogation attorney to determine the merits of pursuing potential targets.
Another situation where the adjuster may want to involve a subrogation attorney is where the target is a transportation carrier and the contract or bill-of-lading for that carrier contains a limitation of liability clause. A knowledgeable subrogation attorney can help the insurer analyze the strength of any limitation of liability clauses in the relevant jurisdiction.
In addition, an insurer should consider involving a subrogation attorney is because damages may be difficult to prove. Some jurisdictions state that, for personal property, the insurer can only recover the diminution in value associated with the artwork. However, if the painting is unique (i.e., has no market value) or market value is difficult to determine, an attorney may be able to argue that the insurer can recover a different measure of damages. For instance, the attorney might be able to convince a court that damage should be allowed to make the insured (i.e., the subrogating insurer) whole and that the court should consider the fine art’s replacement value, intrinsic and/or sentimental value.
An attorney may also be able to argue that any damage done to the artwork can be treated only so far without risking or causing further damage to the artwork. A subrogation attorney may be able to convince the court and/or the target that because the artwork cannot be fully restored it still remains damaged, and the insurer should be able to recover for that loss as well.
While an adjuster is generally concerned with valuing damaged artwork properly to reimburse the insured, an adjuster addressing fine art losses should be equally concerned – from the outset - with a claim’s subrogation potential. Below is a partial checklist for adjusting/subrogating fine art losses:
1. Is the item scheduled on the policy and, if so, what value was used?
2. Did the loss occur as a result of the incident, or did the damage occur before the incident?
3. Is the artwork on loan and, if so, is there a Loan Agreement in place?
a. If yes, does the Loan Agreement address insurance?
4. Can the piece be repaired or is it a total loss?
a. If the artwork can be repaired, what will be the cost?
5. Are there any potential subrogation targets the insurer can recover the loss from (for example, the shipper/packer; the entity causing the flood or fire; or the warehouse where the art was stored)?
a. Did you secure all the applicable contracts, including bills of lading?
6. Are there any contractual barriers to recovery (such as an agreement to secure insurance; a limitation of liability clause; an exculpatory clause; a waiver of subrogation)?
a. If yes, can the insurer argue that the contractual barriers are unenforceable or should not bar recovery in this instance?
7. Assuming the insurer can repair the artwork, will the repair cost fully restore the art to its pre-incident value, or will the artwork be diminished in value?
a. If the artwork will still have a diminished value after restoration and/or if its value is less because of the stigma associated with repaired art, is this value recoverable?
8. Will the cost to repair/conserve the item plus diminution in market value exceed the value of the artwork?
a. If yes, in order to make the insured whole, can you recover this amount in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred?
In summary, if you receive a claim involving fine art, one of the first things you should think about is whether there is any subrogation potential associated with the loss. Pursuing subrogation allows insurers to consider not only what happened, but why it happened. Because storage and other contracts are generally complex and include insurance and/or limitation of liability provisions, adjusters and in-house subrogation professionals should consider involving an experienced subrogation attorney at the outset of the claim. An attorney can help an insurer identify subrogation targets and can also provide support related to damages.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Subrogation
- Construction Defects
- New York
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Evidence
- Minnesota
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Warning
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- Arkansas
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Product Liability
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Limitation of Liability
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
- California
- Condemnation
Tags
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- New York
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Evidence
- Malfunction Theory
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- Experts
- Subro Sessions
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Experts – Daubert
- Rhode Island
- Contracts
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Negligence
- Landlord-Tenant
- Civil Procedure
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Experts - Reliability
- Certificate of Merit
- Amazon-eBay
- Louisiana
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Experts – Qualifications
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Indiana
- Sutton Doctrine
- Arizona
- West Virginia
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Connecticut
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- Limitation of Liability
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Apportionment
- Exculpatory Clause
- Expert Qualifications
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Amazon
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Food and Beverage
- Jury Instructions
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Montreal Convention
- Medical Benefits
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
- California
- Condemnation
- Inverse Condemnation
Authors
Archives
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013