>However, for data,
>it doesn't seem to matter whether data can be identified or not - identified
>data doesn't seem to (or wouldn't in the event of a claim) merit a higher
>replacement value based on any kind of estimate of the cost to recreate it.

Maureen-

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.  Following the 1997 fire at
Diversified Records in West Pittston, PA, the awards made were in part based
on the cost to recreate the records lost... and in this case, some were
paper, some were on film, and I'm unsure is any were media based electronic
data.  http://bit.ly/7isfYV (Article mistakenly identifies location as "west
Patterson", but balance is generally accurate.

I think if it can be clearly demonstrated that the value of recreating the
information is a certain amount, and the loss was not your fault, the claim
would be paid if the valuable records coverage existed.  

In one of these awards, an oil company lost all of the records of
underground tank inspections performed at the demand of the EPA and the
damages cited included the cost of re-gathering the data to essentially
"prove a negative".  In another, it was loan records that were lost and the
cost was to regenerate paper records from microfilm for all of the
delinquent loans, where the original wet signed records had been destroyed.

Larry
[log in to unmask] 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]