Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. A flood reaches a collection. What is the first question, before the question of cover?
Whether the policy falls within the scheme's scope: it extends by law to any property policy, provided it is one
The scheme is not bought, it attaches: it extends by law to any property policy, which makes the scope question prior to every other. A policy of a different kind, or a cover that is not a property policy, does not carry it. The other answers name real but later checks, which presuppose already knowing which mechanism applies.
Glossary entry →2. What triggers the scheme, and what does that trigger write?
An official order: without it no cover, and it names municipalities and a period, so it writes both the geography and the calendar of the cover
The trigger is administrative rather than physical, which produces a disconcerting effect: two identical collections, five hundred meters apart on either side of a municipal boundary, are not in the same position. The second half matters as much, since the order also bounds a period, so damage occurring a few days before or after falls outside. Retaining measured intensity, as another answer suggests, describes what ought to trigger and not what does.
Glossary entry →3. A loaned work is crated on a quay when the order strikes the municipality. Where can the file fall?
Between the two logics: nail to nail follows the object, the order follows the place, and a crated work may be neither at the lender's nor at the borrower's
Two mechanisms sort the world differently, one by object and the other by address, and a crate on a quay no longer has an address in the sense the order means. Believing the order covers everything within the municipality skips the scope question the first question just raised. And the most categorical claim, that a work in transit would never be covered, forgets what the last question establishes: a policy covering the natural event directly responds with no order at all.
Glossary entry →4. An exemplary collector, storage upstairs and climate controlled, suffers a loss under an official order. What applies?
The statutory deductible, which cannot be bought back: in a line where everything is agreed, it treats the exemplary collector and the careless one alike
This whole line works by convention, agreed value included, and the scheme introduces a rule that is not negotiated: the statutory deductible applies as it stands, and no prevention effort reduces it. That is disconcerting for an insured used to seeing its discipline reflected in its contract, and it is better known before than discovered at settlement. The answer applying the contractual deductible describes what would happen if the policy responded alone, which is precisely the next question's subject.
Glossary entry →5. A policy covers the natural event directly, without referring to the scheme. What does that change?
It responds with no order, no municipality condition and on the agreed value: the line that refers or does not refer to the scheme decides everything
The scheme's three constraints fall away together, and with them this line's main loss: settlement is on the agreed value rather than on what the scheme grants. A single drafted line therefore separates the two situations, and it is what to look for rather than relying on an official order. The answer believing the scheme unavoidable confuses its extension by law to policies that refer to it with an impossibility of covering the peril otherwise.
Glossary entry →