I have a Hanover policy, sold and serviced by Eastern Insurance in my hands on my computer screen. It is a plain language policy 9 pages long. It was forwarded to me at renewal time earlier this year on April 12. No where in it does it mention “gunsmith”. It covers guns in my “location” which is my policy address as defined in the definitions section. Section h modifies “location” as follows:
A.2Property not covered:
“while not at your “location”.
directly from page 3 of Eastern's policy:
h. In Transit or Away From Your Location
We will pay for “loss” to Covered Property while:
(1) In transit; or
(2) While temporarily away from your “location”:
The most we will pay for “loss” under this Additional Coverage is the least of the following:
(1) The limit of insurance of the Covered Property; or
(2) $50,000
'We will not pay for “loss” caused by or resulting from any of the following:
a. Delay, loss of use, loss of market or any other consequential loss.
b. Unexplained disappearance.
c. Shortage found upon taking inventory.
d. Illegal or dishonest acts by:
(1) You or any of your partners;
(2) Your directors or trustees;
(3) Your authorized representatives or employees; or
(4) Anyone, other than a carrier for hire, to whom you have entrusted the Covered Property,
including their employees, for any purpose:
(a) Whether acting alone or in collusion with others; and
(b) Whether or not occurring during the hours of employment.
This exclusion does not apply to acts of destruction by your employees, but theft by your employees
is not covered.”
I understand that one of the above posters was told by an employee of Eastern that there is no coverage while a covered gun is at a gunsmith. This is at odds with the clear language of the policy unless loss is caused by illegal or dishonest acts by the gunsmith the item is “entrusted” to. Eastern isn’t the actual insurer nor did it write the policy. Hanover is the insurer. There is no “wiggle” room to exclude a covered gun temporarily at a gunsmith for repair unless the loss is caused by the smith's illegal or dishonest act. The sales agent perhaps is confusing guns that would also be covered by a gunsmith’s insurance and is stolen or fire damaged. In that case, there is a prorated share by each company for damage or loss. In no event is an owner to be paid for more than the gun is worth. I’m not saying that “no coverage” while at a gunsmith wasn’t said by a sales agent at Eastern, but the above policy language controls. If anyone desires my copy of what was sent to me by Eastern send me your email address by PM and I will forward it to you. Perhaps someone may have a different opinion than mine after reading it, but I believe I am correct. Gil
