Its just a thought, I kow you cannot avoid the public liability thing, and building insurance but is cover for the individual exhibits really needed, it can only be for loss due to fire or building collapse as theft is unlikely for the big things. Consequently insurance cover would pay out on loss but if the item is unique or unobtainable, why insure it as you cannot buy another?
Richard
I appreciate your comments / point of view and to some extent I agree with you; however let me try and add some context this can of worms!
Individual valuations were a dual need to satisfy both the insurance company requirements and the SORP accounting requirements of being a Registered Charity. As far as the insurance goes including an annotated listing of the aircraft as part of the policy schedule has helped maintain a ‘relative cap’ on premiums.
Also some NAM aircraft are on loan and the individual owners place different requirements on the museum for taking an airframe or object on loan e.g. during the last few years the USAF loaned airframes have seen their values increased at the request of the powers that be in the USA.
Going back to the days of NAM taking RAFM airframes like the Oxford and Harvard on loan, a condition in the loan agreements stated ‘sum-insured’ values for the airframes – so this is nothing new.
An interesting aside of the independent valuation process (effectively a detailed market assessment of the aviation sector) is that you have an inbuilt metric to help assess an airframes worth when considering further loans or purchases. The NAM lists have been used as a reference point by the trustees when considering both types of acquisition.
On several occasions’ potential loans have been declined due to high valuations and subsequent increases in insurance premiums being considered to be not economically worthwhile for the collection!
Equally it helps assess the ‘market price’ when considering outright purchases.
Sign In
