Having lost a stone from a ring, a woman reported the loss to her homeowners insurer. An adjuster told her that the loss was of a common type and that she should have the repairs done locally. She insisted that the repairs be done by a jeweler in another state, from whom she had purchased the ring, and that she intended to mail it to him. The record showed that the adjuster objected strenuously, because of the risk of loss of the whole ring, and made clear that the company "would not have any part in the mailing of the ring." He said that he told the insured that she certainly should pay for postal insurance but, again, that he strongly advised that repairs be done locally or that she should drive to a nearby town for repairs. She elected to mail the ring, without postal insurance but by certified mail. It was lost and the insurer denied her claim on the basis of an exclusion for:

"Neglect of an insured person to use all reasonable means to protect the covered property at and after the time of loss or when property is threatened by a peril we insure against."

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the insured's motion, upon determining that there was coverage, and allowed recovery of $6,759, the undisputed insured value of the ring. Apparently it was covered as scheduled property.) The insurer appealed.

The insurer contended that the exclusion should apply because its adjuster instructed the insured not to mail the ring, and that her neglect was compounded by not securing postal insurance when it was mailed. She responded that the ring was already insured and didn't think other insurance was necessary. She also said that she did not know of any prohibition against mailing the ring by certified mail. The appeal court confirmed that the mailing of the item was not prohibited by any policy provision. It concluded that the insured's actions did not constitute "neglect to use all reasonable means to protect the covered property,' and found the pertinent exclusion not applicable. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insured and against the insurer.

(MINTON, Plaintiff, Appellee v. TENNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant, Appellant. Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section at Jackson. No. 02A01-9109-CV-00183. March 10, 1992. CCH 1992 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 3649.)