This blog will endeavor, over time, to discuss some of the major issues concerning the theft and conversion of art, artifacts, and antiquities, and what tools an aggrieved former owner of art may have to recover their prized belongings. This blog will also look at the same issues from a defense perspective, since those accused of stealing or converting art may be falsely targeted by law enforcement or they may simply want their day in court.
Insuring Against Art Theft: A Good Idea?
Anyone who has seen the famous movie The Thomas Crown Affair might attest that looting and profiting from stolen art is big business. Indeed, the Canadian news publication Globe and Mail reported in its July 5, 2008 edition that the illegal art and antiquities trade ranks third in “value,” after illegal arms and drug smuggling. The F.B.I. cites similar statistics. The Globe and Mail also reported that art thieves can expect to profit approximately 10% from their illegal activities. When one considers the continuing upward trend in the price of major artworks, it is not difficult to see why some see art theft as a way of making a lot of money very quickly.
When considering the possibility of art theft, a museum, dealer, collector, or other owner of valuable artwork would be prudent to inquire into art insurance. In this entry, we will look at recent news articles that highlight some of the complex and difficult questions that may arise in the process of determining whether to insure art.
On one hand, we have the recent July 6, 2008 clipping from CBC News concerning the theft of life-sized bronze figures in a popular sculpture called Photo Session by American realist artist J. Seward Johnson Jr., along with four bronze plaques, from a public area of Queen Elizabeth Park in Vancouver. The article questions whether the city, having failed to insure these sculptures, or most of the remainder of its municipal art for that matter, has missed the boat. The article quotes certain city employees as stating that, since there has been so little “damage” to the city’s art in the past, the cost of the insurance premiums outweigh the benefits. The article intimates that this belief is now being reexamined in light of the recent pilfering of the city’s prized works.
In the Globe and Mail article referenced above, entitled “Stop the appeasement of art and antiquities thieves,” the newspaper cites the 2004 theft of five ivory statuettes from the Art Gallery of Ontario. The article states that the gallery’s insurer offered a reward of $150,000 for the return of statuettes. This amount, which was presumably far less than the replacement value, was enough. The statuettes were returned. The article asks: Was the $150,000 a ransom? Would the payment of such sums lead to the “appeasement” of art thieves?
Ultimately, deciding whether to insure one’s art collection must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Issues of cost, value, the “uniqueness” of the art, and policy reasons may all come into play when making this decision.
