{"id":111,"date":"2020-04-16T03:33:59","date_gmt":"2020-04-16T03:33:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/?p=111"},"modified":"2020-04-16T03:33:59","modified_gmt":"2020-04-16T03:33:59","slug":"money-securities-as-business-personal-property","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/2020\/04\/16\/money-securities-as-business-personal-property\/","title":{"rendered":"Money &#038; Securities as Business Personal Property"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"boldgrid-section\">\n<div class=\"container\">\n<div class=\"row\">\n<div class=\"col-md-12 col-xs-12 col-sm-12\">\n<p class=\"\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Many package policies contain throw-in coverage that can be of significant value. For example, Employee Dishonesty. While it really should be a standalone coverage, and while every business should have it, most probably rely only on the enhancement available in their BOP or Package.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Sometimes these enhancements can be significant, offering $25,000, $50,000 or more of coverage. While likely not enough to compensate for any significant embezzlement, it&#8217;s a lot more than $0. However, since non-ISO policies are just as common, if not more so, than their &#8220;standard&#8221; counterpart, you still have to pay attention to the wording of this coverage. The $25,000 of &#8220;Employee Dishonesty&#8221; on your policy could be almost useless.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">This is because of the way some non-standard policies read. First, an excerpt from the &#8220;Standard&#8221; employee dishonesty optional coverage from ISO&#8217;s &#8220;Businessowners Coverage Form&#8221; <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com\/uploads\/file\/BP%2000%2003%2001%2010.pdf\"><span data-contrast=\"none\">BP 00 03 01 10<\/span><\/a><span data-contrast=\"auto\">:<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">We will pay for direct loss of or damage to Business Personal Property and &#8220;money&#8221; and &#8220;securities&#8221; resulting from dishonest acts committed by any of your employees acting alone or in collusion with other persons (except you or your partner)&#8230;<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Notice how it specifies three types of property: (1) Business Personal Property, (2) Money, and (3) Securities.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">There are some carriers that lump money and securities <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">into<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> Business Personal Property. Meaning that when they define &#8220;Business Personal Property&#8221; in the front of their policy they specifically include (instead of exclude) money and securities. This can cause an unintended gap with an insured that you would not otherwise know about.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The reason is simple: because some carriers define&nbsp; &#8220;money&#8221; as BPP, they often don&#8217;t need specify money as specifically covered under Employee Dishonesty extensions. Rather, the policy simply states it covers employee theft of &#8220;Business Personal Property&#8221; or &#8220;covered property&#8221;. The problem thus arises if someone doesn&#8217;t have BPP on their policy &#8211; consider a landlord, a Homeowners Association, etc. With this wording, if you don&#8217;t have BPP coverage then you don&#8217;t have theft of money covered because money <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">is considered <\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">BPP.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">I don&#8217;t even think this is a &#8220;gotcha!&#8221; moment. I believe that when a carrier includes things like money\/securities inside of BPP they&#8217;re actually trying to enhance their coverage. With money as BPP you may even enjoy some of the various extensions and enhancements usually reserved for just contents-type property (E.g. off-premises coverage). However, be aware of this potential unintended consequence when it comes to Employee Dishonesty coverage.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">This is another reason why you can&#8217;t rely on summaries and declarations listings of coverage and just assume. If you see a policy that has a $50,000 extension for &#8220;Employee Dishonesty&#8221; it could end up behaving much differently than you think, even for something as &#8220;Standard&#8221; as a BOP.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Many package policies contain throw-in coverage that can be of significant value. For example, Employee Dishonesty. While it really should be a standalone coverage, and while every business should have it, most probably rely only on the enhancement available in their BOP or Package.&nbsp; Sometimes these enhancements can be significant, offering $25,000, $50,000 or more &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/2020\/04\/16\/money-securities-as-business-personal-property\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Money &#038; Securities as Business Personal Property&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bop","category-property"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stonepool.com\/insblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}