stebbo
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 466
Date: 10/1/2007 9:47:21 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
but if it fell out because the prongs had been worn down and messed up because of daily wear and tear then wouldn't the loss of the diamond be indirectly caused by the daily wear and tear of the prongs, meaning that it would fit under the definition of non-covered damages?
Edit: I just read stebbos post...it makes sense, but I think I will check out chubbs site later and see if I can find a definition of wear and tear, as that seems somewhat dangerously broad, especially when you include it could be the indirect cause of some greater loss.
Especially the word 'tear' - is it tear when you catch a prong on some fabric and it breaks off?
The majority of times they seem to be pretty fair when making claims however. Hard to believe after watching "Sicko" last night.
Maybe 'wear and tear' means you're not covered if you shed tears when wearing it? (good message to future proposers - get her opinion on the ring first, and don't marry someone too romantic).