Stability of the enterprise depends of a large extent on what property it owns, in which assets the capital is invested and what income they bring [1]. In practice, insurance companies often have disputes because the insured amount, established by the insurance contract, cannot cover the maximum size of potential losses. As a result, the insurance indemnity is not sufficient to cover actual losses. There is another problem: the insured amount, exceeding the maximum probable losses, always means an over-insurance premium paid by the insured.
As with "non-insurance" and with "excessive insurance" the insured suffers losses. In both cases, the reason for this is the incorrectly established insurance value of the property.
The issue of insurance value is equally relevant for insured persons. The result of a systematic reassessment of insurance values and overstatement of insurance amounts may appear unjustifiably high loss-making insurance. On the contrary, an underestimation of insurance values and understatement of insurance amounts threatens conflicts with insurers.
The problem of assessing the cost of insurance becomes particularly acute when insurance of such expensive property as real estate - buildings, structures, premises.
The most important factor determining the adequacy of insurance coverage for real estate needs of the insured is the correct understanding of the economic and legal nature of the insurance value of real estate. The key to such an understanding can serve only a comprehensive approach that synthesizes legal categories, world experience of insurance and the principles of valuation science.
At the same time, International Standards on Valuation, namely Standard No. 2, treat insurance value as the value of property that is determined by the provisions of an insurance contract or policy.
From a practical point of view, the strategy for determining the value of insurance becomes of particular relevance, due to various methodological approaches used by insurance companies in determining the sum insured for property types of insurance. At present, domestic insurers use the most varied definitions of insurance value, and often operate on other, equally weakly specified terms. Here, in particular, there are: "market", "full", "balance", "real", "actual", "accounting", "residual" and "normative residual" value, "complete recovery" and simply "restorative" value , both in terms of wear and tear, and without, "the costs necessary for the purchase or restoration (fabrication) of the same object" and much more.
In the rules of insurance used in insurance of real estate, as the insurance value are selected a variety of cost indicators.
It can be argued that most insurers, when determining the insurance value, tend to the formula "replacement value minus wear". This is only one possible, but not the only and not the most correct approach to the definition of insurance value.
Thus, domestic insurance practice by itself is unlikely to give a satisfactory answer to the question of the nature of insurance value.
Consider the most commonly used types of cost, which can serve as the basis for determining the sum insured.
According to the International Standards of Appraisal, market value is the estimated amount equal to the amount of money for which the transfer of property from hand to hand is scheduled on the date of assessment as a result of a commercial agreement between a voluntary buyer and a voluntary seller after adequate marketing, while each party is considered to have acted competently and without coercion [2].
Considering market value as a benchmark for determining the insurance value, it should be noted that the conceptual basis of market value as a valuation characteristic does not correspond to the principles and objectives of insurance.
However, the purpose of insurance is always to protect the property interests of a particular person. Therefore, insurance cost should be a monetary expression of the subjective interest of the person, but not an expression of the value of the object "in itself", which by its nature is market value.
Individuality of insurance interest causes one more important legal characteristic of insurance value, which was not mentioned above: the insurance value is a purely contractual value. To the extent that the usefulness and purpose of insurance of one and the same thing may not be the same for different people, the insurance cost of one and the same thing may vary when it is insured by different people.
Therefore, the insurance value and the sum insured is always the subject of an insurer's deal with a particular insured. The identification of insurance and market values carried out by some authors has not only economic but also legal justification.
The following concept, on the basis of which the size of the sum insured is determined, is the determination based on the cost of reproduction (replacement) of the replacement value. There is a point of view according to which the excess of the sum insured at market value at the complete destruction of the property always leads to the unjustified enrichment of the insured at the expense of the insurer.
In our opinion, unjustified enrichment in such circumstances is possible, but not in all cases. By virtue of the fundamental principle of property insurance - the principle of indemnity - the policyholder after obtaining an insurance indemnity must be in a position of property not worse than before the occurrence of an insured event. It is possible to restore the property status in the physical plane either by purchasing the object-analogue that replaces the destroyed, or by constructing a new object that replaces or reproduces the destroyed.
Suppose that we are talking about insurance of an object that does not possess any special properties, and therefore at destruction it can be easily and without any harm to the interests of the owner replaced by the corresponding analogue purchased in the market. Then, the insurance indemnity in the amount of the replacement cost really will allow the policyholder how to buy a substitute, and get an unjustified "surcharge" in the form of exceeding the insurance value over the market.
A completely different situation arises in insurance: non-typical objects that have no analogs at all (for example, architectural monuments); objects whose uniqueness and value is due to their location (for example, objects located in nature reserves and national parks); objects in which the policyholder's interest is almost or completely unrelated to their physical and functional characteristics.
In all such cases, the acquisition of an analogue to replace the destroyed object due to the uniqueness of the latter is difficult or impossible at all. The only way to restore property is to build a replacement.
Because of this fact, insurance does not cover the difference between recovery and market value, which leads to the net losses of the insured, in the full prevention of which, in fact, was the purpose of insurance.
Therefore, the question whether the insurance value, remaining within the limits of the restorative, exceed the market, should be decided on a case-by-case basis based on the nature of the insurance interest and the availability of a real opportunity to restore the property of the insured by acquiring the analogue object.
It is possible to give a number of practical recommendations in accordance [3] for realization of the strategy of determining the cost of insurance of real estate objects:
1. When preparing for insurance, the market value and recoverable value of the property should be determined. This can be done independently, although for expensive objects it makes sense to think about the services of a professional appraiser.
2. It is necessary to analyze their probable actions with the complete destruction of the insured real estate:
- if its real recovery is envisaged, then it is wise to choose a recovery as the insurance value;
- if the probable acquisition of the corresponding analog, then the role of insurance value is suitable market.
3. The insurance value should not be overestimated in order to provide a more reliable insurance coverage: over-insurance is always an over-paid insurance premium.
4. Nothing prevents the establishment of insurance value in the interval between market and recovery. In any case, the insurance value should not exceed both market and recovery at the same time.
Reference list
1. Vita Andrieieva Formalization of valuation of intangible assets of an enterprise // Scientific notes of the University "KROK". - 2017 - №46. - P. 93-101.
2. Law of Ukraine "On evaluation of property, property rights and professional appraisal activity in Ukraine" dated July 12, 2001 No. 2658-III // The site of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine [Electronic resource]. - Mode of access: zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2658-14
3. International Standards of Evaluation / International Committee for Standards of Property Valuation and Standards of Professional Activities of the Appraiser of the Ukrainian Society of Appraisers dated April 23, 2011 // [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.twirpx.com/file/1855878/
|
Голосування 
Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст мишкою і натисніть Ctrl + Enter