You are a claims handler for an insurer. One of the policyholders has insured a piece of artwork under an agreed value insurance policy for the r sum of 120000. This agreed value is based on expert valuation carried out in 2015. The policy has been renewed annually. With no subsequent change to the agreed value being advised to the insurer.

in 2021 the artwork suffered extensive water damage. The policyholder did not think it could be properly repaired due to its extensive damage and wanted to claim for settled for 120000. The insurer insisted the artwork was repaired.

The artwork was repaired but not all the original paint colours could be replicated. An expert in valuing art started that in its repaired start the piece is not only with 100000. However if it had not been damaged it's value would not be worth 150000. Paul argues that he should have been give a cash payment of 20000 to allow for the loss of value.

Question:

doscuss citing relaxant case law the basis of indemnity and settlement for the artwork.

Thansk