Ronald D. Spencer, Chairman of the Art Law Practice at the New York law firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, addresses the issue of the valuation of loss or damage to art for an insurance claim. He specifically addresses the use of, and questions the appropriateness of the use of, “blockage” and “blockage discounts” as applicable standards for interpreting the loss valuation provisions of an insurance contract.
The insurance coverage amount is the maximum amount the policy will pay. This amount provides the basis for calculation of insurance premiums. Most insurance claims do not involve claims for the full coverage amount.
The methodology used by the insurer to value a damage claim is a relevant variable for the insured. Most art insurance policies are vague, however, on the valuation method, “providing, simply, that in the event of disagreement on the value of the loss, the insured and insurer will each retain their own appraisers, and if the appraisers do not agree on the value of the loss, the dispute is to be submitted to an umpire or arbitrator, whose decision will be final.”
New York’s Bruce Silverstein Gallery suffered loss on October 29, 2012 caused by flooding during Hurricane Sandy. The gallery had an “All Risks Fine Art Dealers Floater” insurance policy with a “Basis of Valuation” provision stipulating that “consigned property shall be valued at the Agreed Net Consigned Value Plus 10%.” The concept of “blockage” was applied by the umpire representing the gallery’s insurance company. This was the first time the concept of “blockage” for art sales, which first arose in 1972 in the context of art valuations for estate tax purposes, was applied to an art valuation for purposes of calculating a loss for an insurance claim.
When valuing the loss of many artworks, the concept of “blockage” values works as they could be sold on one particular date, the date of the disaster (or death, in the framework of estate sales) on which the loss takes place. Blockage discounts the present value of the works of art based on future streams of income from sales over the period of time it would require to sell the art.
The application of blockage is considered to be consistent with USPAP Standard 6 which provides that when a large mass of property is to be valued as of a specific date, the appraiser is required to take into account that the value of the whole may be different from that of the individual parts.
Mr. Spencer observes that “by choosing to apply a blockage discount to an insurance loss valuation, an umpire, in effect, is deciding that the insurance loss should be determined by the price a bulk buyer of the art at the date of loss would be willing to pay.”
He observes, further, that “the art owner should understand that the result of a blockage discount for the owners’ insurance claim is that the more art the owner has lost, the less the insurer will pay per item—the larger the volume of art lost, the greater the blockage discount for each piece.”
See:
“Think Your Art Is Adequately Insured? Here Are a Few Insider Strategies to Help Minimize Your Risk” | Ronald D. Spencer, artnet.com, 8 September 2017
#art #artmarket #artcollections #collectors #galleries #insurance #fineartinsurance #blockage #blockagediscount #risk #hurricane #Sandy #Harvey #Irma #NewYork #Houston #MiamiBeach #appraisals #valuations #finance #tangibleassets #contractlaw
