Three issues pop out to me: 1) who is responsible/liable for the loss, i.e. which insurance policy(ies) is/are in play; 2) what is the extent of coverage under the policies-- not so much monetary amounts but the extent that exclusions apply; and, 3) what is the amount of monetary damage.
As for the last of these, it seems reasonable to have conducted the auction to establish current value, especially if many of the cards had not been in the market recently. I highly doubt any insurance company insisted on this format because value could be established in other ways. Rather it was in ML's best interest, as well as those who would receive compensation, to have the most recent pricing data available for the insurance claim. And it is just that-- a claim-- which the insurance companies can and (gasp) do dispute. They will no doubt investigate the bidding to look for irregularities or other signs of skullduggery, but assuming all went forward on the up and up, the final hammer prices are excellent evidence of value.
__________________
Now watch what you say, or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal
Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable
If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.- Ulysses S. Grant, 18th US President.
|