Under the pair or set clause, loss of an item that is part of a pair or set may be settled by:

Under the pair or set clause, loss of an item that is part of a pair or set may be settled by:

• A. Repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set to its value before loss
• B. Pay the full replacement value of the entire item
• C. Pay only the current market value of the item
• D. Deny the claim unless all items are present

Answer: (A)

When an item that belongs to a pair or a set is lost or damaged, the pair or set clause aims to restore the overall value of the set rather than just paying for a single piece. The insurer may settle by repairing or replacing the affected part so the pair or set is restored to its value before the loss. This keeps the set’s value intact and avoids treating the loss as if only the single piece matters. Other options don’t fit this goal. Paying the full replacement value of the entire item would overcompensate relative to the set’s restored value. Paying only the current market value of the single item ignores the goal of maintaining the set, and denying the claim because not all items are present contradicts the purpose of a pair or set clause.

When an item that belongs to a pair or a set is lost or damaged, the pair or set clause aims to restore the overall value of the set rather than just paying for a single piece. The insurer may settle by repairing or replacing the affected part so the pair or set is restored to its value before the loss. This keeps the set’s value intact and avoids treating the loss as if only the single piece matters.

Other options don’t fit this goal. Paying the full replacement value of the entire item would overcompensate relative to the set’s restored value. Paying only the current market value of the single item ignores the goal of maintaining the set, and denying the claim because not all items are present contradicts the purpose of a pair or set clause.