An insured's TV is stolen from a repair shop, but the owner's claim under the insured's policy is denied. Which provision is likely causing this denial?

The situation described involves a claim related to property that was in the possession of a repair shop when it was stolen. In this context, the "no benefit to bailee clause" is relevant because it is designed to prevent insurance policies from providing coverage for property when it is in the temporary custody of another party, such as a bailee (in this case, the repair shop).

The no benefit to bailee clause specifies that the insured's policy does not extend coverage to the bailee for any losses they may incur while holding the insured's property. This clause is put in place to ensure that the party temporarily holding the property does not receive a windfall of insurance benefits specifically designed for the owner of the property. As a result, when the TV was stolen from the repair shop, the shop owner could not make a successful claim against the insured's policy because the damage or loss occurred while the property was in their possession, which the no benefit to bailee clause explicitly prohibits.

In contrast, other options, such as a property limits clause or a liability coverage exclusion, deal with different aspects of a policy and wouldn't specifically address the situation where a bailee is involved. General exclusions provision may apply broadly to what is covered under the policy, but the